Monty, you’re 100 percent right; the Japanese boat incident is irrelevant. Since N2K insisted on conflating the two incidents, I used her own lame reasoning to show her how silly she sounded. She made the asinine objection that we had no business flying in Asia; since she had brought it up, I pointed out that by her reasoning, the Japanese boat must have deserved what happened because it was in our territory.
It was a tongue-in-cheek parody of N2K’s posts.
And, yes, Flyboy88, you’re exactly right. I find it odd that Jung tongzhi(sorry, I don’t know “comrade” in Cantonese) is trashing America while living in comfort and freedom that he could never have in China. He should be grateful he can say anything he wants and all he has to fear is some derision from other posters.
Anyway, well done, President Bush! (Of course, I intend to rip him a new one on the environment, but he passed the test in diplomacy with flying colors)
…and I express regret if I missed it earlier in this thread:
If we continue our surveillance runs in the future, will they have armed escorts? Should they, or do you think the PRC will manage to keep some semblance of safe distance in the future?
**
It’s called unjustified loss of liberty. Here in America, we do, indeed consider that “a hardship of some sort.” In fact, tens of thousands of people have sacrificed their lives over more than two centuries in defense of it.
Are you ever going to point out what the wrongdoing was on the U.S.'s part? Sorry, I forgot. Been-there, haven’t-done-that.
This next one is for both rjung and jab:
**
HUH???
What part of this don’t you understand?
A big, slow, propeller plane is moving along on a straight, undeviating course. Two small, very fast, very maneuverable jets engage it, and start buzzing around it. What’s the propeller plane supposed to do? Out-maneuver the fighter jets? Attempt to react to the fighter jets’ actions?
Ridiculous.
The best (damn near the only) option is to continue to maintain the steady, straight, undeviating course, and rely on the fast and maneuverable jets that are engaging the plane to be responsible for avoiding collisions.
This is a great question. And I have no idea what they’re gonna do. My feeling is that China won’t come out and intercept us the very next time we show up. But eventually they will, and I think that the Navy is going to let us go it alone. I say this because I haven’t heard any plans to start rolling a carrier down there. Doesn’t mean it’s not happening or in the works, though.
And was it jab1 that’s worried about whether we’ll never know if the plane was on autopilot? Relax, Einstein. Not that it matters, like many have pointed out. But we’ll know when the pilots tell us. I’m guessing they’ve already said as much, which is what started this whole flap to begin with.
Well, that’s your opinion, and you’re certainly entitled to it. However, given the hypothetical situation of a Chinese spy plane making an emergency landing on a US military base, common sense suggests to me that the US military would not be so quick to simply “let bygones be bygones” and send the Chinese crew home within 48 hours. Instead, given our military’s long record for security, safety, and suspicion, I believe that Mr. Brown’s list of procedures would be closer to the truth.
Granted, this is all hypothetical, but I simply wanted to point out that the notion “if the situation were reversed, we’d never do anything like what the Chinese did” is a groundless one – if we felt there was a security or safety risk, I think we would be doing much of the same things.
Well, send your puke to Lew’s web site, s’il vous plait. I never said I agreed with all of his points; I just used it to show things from a different point of view (which IMO was sorely lacking in American coverage of this mess).
Just trying to counter the whole “our boys are POW captives!” teeth-gnashing hysteria. I agree that being detained is no picnic for anyone, but since our crewmen were (by all accounts) treated well and fairly during the entire time, some perspective must be maintained.
How about prematurely blaming the Chinese airman for the accident before any of the facts were available? How about being rude with our threats demanding an immediate release so early on? How about refusing to acknowledge (even as we disagree) that there is some disagreement over what China’s airspace is? Or apologizing that our (legally-permitted) surveilance activities may have appeared more ominous than we had intended?
See, IMO that is one of the fundamental problems in this whole mess. We Americans have said from Day 1 that we were always in the right, citing international law as our argument. However, while we were technically right, we’ve never acknowledged that we might appear to have done something wrong, nor have we recognized that China is also a world superpower, and should be accorded some due respect. It’s that mindset – that we’re absolutely right and have nothing to apologize for – that’s caused things to be bumpier than they needed to be.
I have never said anything disparaging or demeaning about the American crew, and I’ll be surprised if you can find proof otherwise. All of my ire has been toward Bush’s initial blundering of the crisis, and the mindless jingoism of folks like yourself who refuse to even consider the possibility that we might not be 100% innocent in this mess.
We also have our self-professed patriots, the folks who accept anything the government says and who will gladly supress others’ rights in the name of “patriotism”. And frankly, they scare me more than the tanks do…
Couldn’t escort planes fly out of Okinawa at the same time that the recon plane departs from there? Or is there something in our agreements with the Japanese that would prohibit that?
Well, what kind of escort planes are you talking about? You’d obviously want fighters, and IIRC, they have 15’s and 16’s at Kadena. So, you’re talking 2, maybe 3 tankers orbiting at various spots on the track from Kadena to vicinity Hainan; not only that, but you’re asking the pointy-nosed guys to fly an 11-hour mission (they’re usually up for an hour, hour and a half), something they rarely do.
So I guess it’s possible, but a logistical nightmare. One of the problems with having such a remote track.
Well, now that they’ve been released this thread is sure to be slowly dying out…
I heard on the radio today that the release of the 24 is ‘an answer to the families’ prayers’.
I can just imagine those prayers:
Someting else I noted: Our conservatives are upset that the way this ended made us look ‘weak’. Yet there was an article in my morning paper today saying that the Chinese hard-liners feel the same way about China’s letting them go. I think that if since GW managed to piss off both of these groups, he must have done something right (I never thought I’d say THAT).
I don’t have much of a sense of the different capabilities of the planes. So in general, these slow-flying propeller-driven planes have greater range on a single tank of gas?
[WAG]
Okay, lemme try to figure this out, since my last answer may have been a bit hasty.
We fly out there using approx. 300kt groundspeed. Fighters can probably double that, so figure 600kts. It takes us about 4-5 hrs to reach the Hainan area, so let’s say it’d take the fighters 2.5 hrs. (I’m doing some wagging here, since IANAFighter Pilot) Since they wouldn’t need to escort us the whole way (although CINCPACFLT may well want just that), they could depart Kadena about 2 hrs after the EP-3 and meet it at a pre-determined point on track. With external drop tanks full of fuel, they could probably make it there without tanking, but they’d need to tank soon after rendezvous, so you’d still need a tanker out there. Figure three hours onstation for the EP-3 before it has to head for home, so the fighters are up to 5.5 hours, plus a 2.5 hr transit back to Kadena, which adds up to 8. So, you’d need at least 1 tanker in the South China Sea (not a problem; Kadena is chock full of tankers), and possibly two, since I don’t know how long those tankers can loiter for, to provide 2-3 refuelings for the fighters. (The EP-3, btw, has about a 12-hr endurance and isn’t air-to-air refuelable)
So, the long answer: Possible (a lot more possible than I originally thought), but much more difficult if you want the fighters to pace the EP-3 the entire way there and back.
[/WAG]
Thanks for your answer, flyboy88. The reason I ask is I’m wondering if the strategic implications are starting to show from our giving up Clark Airbase a few years ago. Don’t have a map handy, but with the Philippenes situated right there on the South China Sea, I wonder if it would be a lot easier to lend our recon aircraft that kind of support if we were still there.
Thinking back to the late 70s–I believe we had bases in Taiwan, the Philippines, and probably several other places which we have since given up. In that light, it may not be so surprising that the Chinese have (heretofore?) regarded us as a “declining power”.
So what it comes down to is we refused to coddle the persistent and pathological Chinese inferiority complex vis-a-vis the rest of the world, refused to participate in the fantasy that China is anything but a third-rate power (world superpower, my eye), and refused to stoop down to the level of a regime that cannot conceive of the notion of “rule of law”. Yeah, rjung, I can see we’re getting down to brass tacks for you, finally.
thinksnow: the PRC would probably take a dim view of high explosive devices detonated over an aircraft parked on one of their runways, but I had similar notions using a Tomahawk back around Day 1.
Of course, my “gut” reaction to China’s demand for an apology was to write “We’re Sorry” on the nose cones of 24 Tomahawk missiles and lauch a T-O-T track at Beijing, targeting various tender spots (especially that state-sponsored rag that passes for a newspaper).
23 HE warheads, and 1 stuffed with leaflets saying: “Get the message? Let them go!” and “You can kiss MFN goodbye!” and “Trade deficit? Paid in full!”
People tell me that this would be “bad”.
As to fighter escorts for future P3 flights: maybe, with an expansionist 900 pound gorilla to its north, Hanoi might be accomodating.
I think you overstate your case a little bit. They surely had some terrifying moments, but they were treated well by all accounts. They had food, and even had air conditioning (which means they had something probably only 1% of the Chinese population has).
While perhaps it was all faked for the visitors, I’m doubting China is going to do something so reckless.
I know it’s been gone over time and time again on this thread, but the spying is the wrongdoing. Regardless of how normal it is for nations to do to each other, we don’t like it when other people do it to us, so it’s clear it is wrong in our eyes. The US would intercept any unknown plane that comes within 200 miles of the coastline, so it’s understandable that other countries would do essentially the same thing.
First, this is irrelevant. Just because China is worse doesn’t mean rjung shouldn’t go around taking an anti-US position. Second of all, our media is also spoon-fed by the government. Our media is free to accept or reject that spoon-feeding, but to make a profit most media pretty much relies on the government information.
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we give you the perennial “gentlemen don’t read other people’s mail” defense. What is this, the third or fourth time and the third or fourth person who’s tried to bring this up? Who can tell me the exact words of that quote about how you can’t use reason to argue someone out of a position they didn’t arrive at by reason? You guys are the ones displaying the knee-jerk reaction here (the US must be wrong, some way, some how!) and now you’re trying to justify your knee-jerkiness by grasping the only straw available to you. Too bad it’s such a flimsy one.
And regarding the media–you really don’t understand the freedoms you have in this country, pal. If a journalist in China goes against the government line and cites independent sources to back up his or her assertions, that journalist can expect to be promptly jailed for “revealing state secrets”. In this country, we had Deep Throat, the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contragate–all stories of government malfeasance that were revealed in the mainstream press. Nothing like that happens in China, and you damn well know it. Over there, it’s still verboten to try to honestly assess the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, or Tian’anmen Square.
I still think spying is morally indefensible. If it isn’t, why did we make such a big fuss over Hanssen getting caught? Don’t we pay people to betray THEIR countries and spy for US? But it’s all right if WE do it to THEM? :rolleyes: (I know, I know, another topic, another thread.)
You know, the fact that Avumede and rjung can fail to recognize that this is the whole point we’re trying to make–I’m not exaggerating when I say that I find that truly frightening.
Well, no. The initial US response was to treat China with about as much respect as we might bestow on a banana republic. No expression of condolences for the missing pilot. No allusions to possible errors in protocol. Demands that China not touch our plane with a 35 foot pole.
Gradually it became clear that the US, in similar circumstances would have detained the pilots for some period of time (during an investigation) and would have gone through the plane with a fine tooth comb, its sovereignty notwithstanding. (No, I am not claiming that US behavior would have been identical to China’s).
On the Wednesday following the incident, reports suggest that W sensed that the Kindler Gentler side of the administration had not gotten out. From there on out, I have no complaints. So goboy maybe it should be 2 cheers for W, but not 3.
I hasten to add that Clinton’s China policy for the first 2 years or so (IIRC) was a hash. Like W, he was going to “get tough” with China. Reality eventually set in. Perhaps the Chinese saw an opportunity to accelerate the US learning curve. To wit: treat us like a competitor and we’ll act like one.
Partly correct. I might note that AFAIK the crewman were returned without the old Commy/Cold War rhetoric (ie they weren’t “expelled”). The new Commy rhetoric is somewhat less shrill. I’m only pointing this out to those who are inclined to ignore the extent to which the PRC is a country in transition. More authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or China in the time of Mao worry less about their domestic audience.
And perhaps you don’t understand the point I was making. The fact that they are theoretically free to reject the govt spoon-feeding doesn’t mean they do, since there are profit motives that mean they are far more likely to accept than reject. The end result is that our media slants heavily towards the government point of view, while the Chinese media slants heavily towards their governments point of view.
If it isn’t, why did we make such a big fuss over Hanssen getting caught? Don’t we pay people to betray THEIR countries and spy for US? But it’s all right if WE do it to THEM? :rolleyes: (I know, I know, another topic, another thread.)