Chinese ships 'harassing' US navy

Yet it happened all the time. Did you ever watch Hunt For Red October? While I'm not claiming that the movie was historically accurate by any means, the fact that the US and the Soviet Union regularly played "tag" with nuclear submarines is well-documented.

Furthermore, the US regularly used nuclear brinkmanship on numerous occasions. The Cuban Missile Crisis was merely one such time it did so.

Oh. My. God.

I've been reading your posts, but it just gets to the point of being so blatently cloud-****oo willful ignorance and incrimination of the US.

As one of these boards most whacko socialist liberals* I have to say:

a)Yes, US boats trailed Soviet boats and vice versa. You know why? Because hypothetically a war could break out at any time, and those subs would be launching nukes at targets, so would need to be killed ASAP
b)Of course, trailing an enemy vessel gives you an idea of its capabilities in terms of speed, navigation, depth abilities and countermeasures.
c) Yes, it was good practice to trail a boat stealthily, to practice for a forthcoming engagement, and to see how long one could last undetected within the midsts of the enemy. In fact it evolved into a game; a vessel of either nationality would sneak beind an enemy vessel, align itself perfectly for a kill-shot, and then "ping2 the enemy vessel with a high-amplitude sonar pulse to let the enemy know they'd been "killed2
d)Ever hear of the "Crazy Ivan"? It was a countermeasure instituted by the Soviet navy where the Soviet vessel being followed would attempt effectively an underwater "Immelmann" manoeuvre, where they loop back on themseles. This in fact caused more collisions than it prevented.
e)US commanders ramming soviet subs deliberately? What the hell? Really? whgat the Jesus Christ on a bike? This is absurd on so many levels:
i)Why woud the US commander risk war, or at the very least immediate retaliation?
ii)Why would the executive officer agree? Is he a crackhead too?
iii)Why would the US sub make its presence known to all and sundry?
iv)Why would the sub ram when the torpedo bow tubes are there, which would put them out of action, rendering the sub impotent submerged?
v)Finally, why the bloody hell would the sub commander risk millions of dollars, his life and the life of all aboard his vessel to get some cheap, presumably homo-erotic jollies by ramming a soviet sub?

In conclusion, you're wrong, and have been duely served. Good day to you sir.


*Sources:
1. Rik Meleet telling me over a pint of beer that I'm one of maybe 2 people on this board he finds more radical than him
2. Lucefearul giving me his tacit endorsement of being one of a mere handful of true socialists on this board, with a good understanding of the political spectrum
 
Ever hear of the "Crazy Ivan"?
Since the term was popularized by the movie I just mentioned, what do you think?

US commanders ramming soviet subs deliberately?
I already addressed that specific point:

Originally Posted by Patroklos
3.) Nothing you have posted in any way suggest the US willfully rammed anything.

True enough. But so what? That's what obviously happened on numerous occasions.
I guess you overlooked it somehow.

My point remains. The US has used dubious tactics which were intended to provoke or incite their 'enemies' on numerous occasions. This one is no different.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/spy-a03.shtml

“Imagine a Chinese plane flying a surveillance mission off the Florida coast colliding with a Navy F-16 sent on an aggressive monitoring mission. The Navy fighter goes down and the pilot is lost; the Chinese plane is forced to land on US soil. The incident occurs at a moment when China is about to supply a package of sophisticated weapons to Cuba (possibly including the very same model spy plane now in US hands); is planning to deploy a missile shield that would neutralize the US nuclear arsenal; and has signaled that curbing US regional ambitions it to become the organizing principle of its military doctrine. Imagine further that the incident comes two years after Chinese bombs had destroyed (albeit inadvertently) a US embassy in Europe... It's unlikely Americans would feel in a particularly forgiving mood, either.”

The region off Hainan and the mainland provinces of Guangdong and Fukien have long been a potential flashpoint. US spy planes regularly fly up and down the Chinese coast from Air Force bases in Okinawa, patrolling the Taiwan Strait and the northern part of the South China Sea, which contains a number of small islands whose sovereignty is disputed between China, the Philippines and Vietnam.

According to US press reports citing Pentagon officials, naval intelligence operations in the western Pacific were retargeted in 1992, with China supplanting the former Soviet Union as the top priority. The EP3 and similar spy planes collect data for US Navy aircraft battle groups. Hainan is a particular focus, since it is covered with military bases due to its strategic location at China's southernmost point.

There is an eerie resemblance between the military situation today around Hainan and that prevailing at the Soviet offshore island of Sakhalin in 1983, at the time of the KAL 007 incident. The Korean passenger jet was shot down by Soviet air defense fighters after it deliberately flew over Sakhalin, the site of numerous Soviet military bases, as part of an operation coordinated with US intelligence agencies. A US spy plane similar to the EP3 was flying on a parallel course, shadowing the KAL flight, and observing the responses of Soviet radar installations and air bases.
While I certainly don't agree with everything this author has written, such as KAL 007 deliberately flying over the Soviet Union, I don't have much difficulty believing that it was deliberately shadowed by a US spy plane to gauge the reaction. What remains unclear is why the US military did not advise the KAL flight what it was doing or what the consequences might be. My bet is that they didn't think it would be shot down.
 
:snorts out coffee:

The Chinese also dropped pieces of wood in the water in Impeccable's path.

How are pieces of wood going to stop stop a metal hull ship ?
What were they surpose to be some kind of small mine ?
 
This is supposedly the quietest ship the US Navy has afloat. I bet it wouldn't stay that way for long if it happened to repeatedly run into a bunch of floating debris, for instance.

The French castle scene from Monty Python and The Holy Grail comes immediately to mind...

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
 
From BBC.co.uk



I wonder what's behind this?

Pun intended? :lol:

The whole stripping down to underwear part reminds me of a joke:

guy 1: Did you hear about this guy who killed 20 jews and a clown?
guy 2: Why did he kill the clown?
guy 1: See, no one cares about jews.
 
If they are in international waters, then they have every right to be there.
 
The Chinese should build two barges with an IRBM on each one and keep them permanently parked just outside the international territorial limit of 12 miles in close proximity to DC and NYC. After all, they have every right to do so.
 
Like the Soviet did for 50 years (except their barges were underwater ones)?
 
From what I've heard, the Soviets usually never trusted their SSBNs to stray very far from mother Russia. And they were certainly never deployed into shallow water in close proximity to the US where they would be sitting ducks.
 
Of course the US and China spy on each other and are both well aware of it, but parking listening ships just outside Chinese territorial waters strikes me as a bit cheap and insulting. You could at least give the Chinese the respect to do your spying covertly. If you're arrogantly running overt intelligence gathering operations like this you deserve a bit of harassment. Have a bit of class.
 
Shenanigans is the word of the day.
 
How are pieces of wood going to stop stop a metal hull ship ?
What were they surpose to be some kind of small mine ?

The point is nobody knew what it was. Anybody even pretending to excuse this behavior should think about how you would feel if some guy started thowing cardboard boxes in front of you on the freeway. More relevant to the point, how wout the state police feel about it? :D

Methinks if the US ships weren't there, someplace they have no business being, then this wouldn't happen.

Its international waters, period.

From what I've heard, the Soviets usually never trusted their SSBNs to stray very far from mother Russia. And they were certainly never deployed into shallow water in close proximity to the US where they would be sitting ducks.

Please educate yourself as to where the continental shelf along the US coast lies. The Soviets didn't approach the US coast that close for the same simple reason we didn't approach their coasts that close; the range of our missiles made it totally unneeded.

Of course the US and China spy on each other and are both well aware of it, but parking listening ships just outside Chinese territorial waters strikes me as a bit cheap and insulting. You could at least give the Chinese the respect to do your spying covertly. If you're arrogantly running overt intelligence gathering operations like this you deserve a bit of harassment. Have a bit of class.

I think it is funny that you object to the presense of a vessel harming nobody and breaking no law, but seem to think it a good think when a Chinese submarine surfaces within the formation of a nation it is a peace with thouands of miles away from its territory recklessly endangering thousands for no reason other than to pull a prank.

If China objected they could easily lodge a protest in any number of ways. Violating maritime navigation laws is childish, something a regime the likes if Iran participates in and not a nation claiming to be an accendant superpower wanting to be welcomed as a peer in the international arena.

Yeah, this certainly looks like safe and legal manuevering on the part of the Chinese. I totally don't mind when people cut me off and then slam on their brakes to a complete halt in front of me while I drive to work in the morning.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Impeccable_(T-AGOS-23)

Shortly after the incident, the Impeccable radioed the Chinese crews, informing them of its intentions to leave the area, and requesting a safe pass to travel. When trying to leave the area, however, two of the Chinese ships stopped directly in front of the fleeing ship, forcing it to do an emergency stop to avoid a collision.[6][7] The crew aboard one of the Chinese ships also used a grappling hook to try to snag Impeccable's tow line that was dragging its sonar buoy through the water

So, once again the US is the better man, leaving as opposed to stooping to their immature level, and for their decent effort are rewarded by attempted willful collision and a direct attack on the ship itself.
 
Its international waters, period.

Here we go. An America has found an idiotic loophole to arrogantly justify cowboy like actions. That's why the rest the world hates America.

So, American warships blatantly invade China's privacy by spying on them, then, in international waters, when China responds and spies back, the US cries like a school girl.
 
Here we go. An America has found an idiotic loophole to arrogantly justify cowboy like actions. That's why the rest the world hates America.

So, American warships blatantly invade China's privacy by spying on them, then, in international waters, when China responds and spies back, the US cries like a school girl.
:rolleyes:

BEIJING (Reuters) – China accused a U.S. naval ship of conducting illegal surveying off southern Hainan island, a Hong Kong TV website reported on Tuesday, after the Pentagon said Chinese vessels had harassed the ship in international waters.

Global oil prices rose 3 percent on Monday, partly in a knee-jerk reaction to tension between the world's top oil consumers. But the confrontation was unlikely to do lasting damage to ties between two countries closely involved in trying to end the global financial crisis, a Chinese analyst said.

The United States urged China to observe international maritime rules after the Pentagon said five Chinese ships, including a naval vessel, harassed the U.S. Navy ship in international waters.

The Chinese vessels "shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity" to the USNS Impeccable, an unarmed ocean surveillance vessel, on Sunday, with one ship coming within 25 feet, a U.S. Defense Department statement said.

The tropical resort island of Hainan is the site of a Chinese naval base that houses ballistic missile submarines, according to independent analysts.

An unnamed spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington denied the Chinese ships had violated maritime rules and said U.S. ships had been conducting illegal surveying, the website of Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television (news.ifeng.com) reported.

"The U.S. claim about operating in high seas is out of step with the facts," the report quoted the spokesman as saying. "The U.S. navy vessel concerned has been consistently conducting illegal surveying in China's exclusive economic zone," the station quoted the spokesman as saying.

"China believes this contravenes international laws of the sea and China's relevant laws."

Chinese authorities had "repeatedly used diplomatic channels to demand that the U.S. side cease unlawful activities in China's exclusive economic zone," the report added.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry was unavailable for comment.

U.S. defense officials said the incident followed days of increasingly aggressive Chinese conduct in the area, including fly-bys by Chinese maritime surveillance planes.

It comes just weeks after the two sides resumed military talks, postponed in November after a U.S. announcement of arms sales to Taiwan, a self-ruled island China claims as its own.

And it echoes a stand-off in 2001 between U.S. and Chinese military forces after a U.S. spy plane made an emergency landing on Hainan after a collision with a Chinese fighter jet. China released 24 crew after a U.S. apology.

NO MAJOR FALLOUT TO TIES-ANALYST

The dispute is unlikely to do deep damage to Sino-U.S. ties when both sides are grappling with the global financial crisis, but it suggests Beijing will take a tougher stance as its naval ambitions grow, said Shi Yinhong, an expert on regional security at Renmin University in Beijing.

"The United States is present everywhere on the world's seas, but these kinds of incidents may grow as China's naval activities expand," said Shi.

The Impeccable is one of five ocean surveillance ships that serve with the U.S. 7th Fleet, which is based in Yokosuka, Japan. The ships use low-frequency sound to search for undersea threats including submarines, a U.S. military official said.

A U.S. Defense Department spokesman said the Chinese vessels had surrounded the Impeccable, waving Chinese flags and telling the U.S. ship to leave.

The Pentagon also described accounts of half a dozen other incidents dating back to March 4, in which the Impeccable and its sister vessel, USNS Victorious, were subjected to aggressive behavior.

Oil prices rose on news of the maritime jostling, although analysts said it was hard to see how the tension could threaten oil supplies or inflate prices.

"I can see the geopolitical risk between two producing countries. But the U.S. and China are two major consumers. I don't know why oil prices would rise on that," said Tony Nunan, risk management manager at Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Corp.

The confrontation coincides with two sensitive anniversaries in Tibet, making China especially sensitive to outside scrutiny of its affairs. It also comes as neighboring North Korea says it is on full combat readiness in response to the start of annual military exercises by U.S. and South Korean troops.

Analyst Shi said the seas off Hainan were important to China's projection of its influence with a modern naval fleet.

"The change is in China's attitude. This reflects the hardening line in Chinese foreign policy and the importance we attach to the strategic value of the South China Sea."

Denny Roy, an expert on Asia-Pacific security at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, said the confrontation appeared intended to send a message to Washington.

"I don't think this happened spontaneously," he said. "...No doubt it had the endorsement of central leaders in Beijing."

A recent study of China's rising power by a top People's Liberation Army thinktank said the country should seek to avoid confrontation with Washington but not shrink when pressed.

"We don't want to stir up trouble, but nor will we fear it," said the study published last year by the PLA Academy of Military Science in Beijing.

"Especially on core interests involving our country's national unity and territorial integrity, we must keep an actively enterprising stance, defying brute force and daring to flash our sword."

(Additional reporting by Ian Ransom in Beijing and David Morgan in Washington; Editing by Nick Macfie and Dean Yates)



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090310/pl_nm/us_usa_china
 
Here we go. An America has found an idiotic loophole to arrogantly justify cowboy like actions. That's why the rest the world hates America.

loophole /= several century year old maritime traditions now codified as law know by every sniviling 4th mate and midshipmen plying the shared seas.

You ever wonder why America doesn't shoot down Iranian/NK/Venezualian/whoever elses you pretend we are constantly itching to murders planes when the pass by our borders ont there way to other countries or, *gasp*, into our borders on the way to the UN?

Funny, the "rest of the world who hates America" doesn't seem to mind when hugely capable and resourceful naval assets are on hand to rescue them from major natural disasters the world over at a moments notice. I know all those tsunami victims just HATE the USN with all the fiber of their being, right?

So, American warships blatantly invade China's privacy by spying on them, then, in international waters, when China responds and spies back, the US cries like a school girl.

1.) It wasn't a warship. Warships are USS, this is an entirely unarmed government vessel operated by civilians on behalf of the US Navy, ie the designation USNS.

2.) Form already tried this approach with absolutely zero positive results, but feel free to point out an instance where in respose to Chinese spying, you know the kind that is international illegal and perpetrated by the Chinese every day against our defense cyber assets vise an entirely legal and passive US vessel operating in international waters, that was responded to by an illegal use of violence against Chinese civilians.

This is not international incident material. The civilain crews of the Chinese vessels should be arredted/stand trial/punished and the naval personel recieve their military equilvanet just as any other vehicular wreckless endangerment case would be prosecuted.
 
Barring Russian and US navy, IMO Chinese navy could knock out any other navies one-on-one. China and Russia have the most advanced anti-ship missile and that is SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles. They both have plenty of them. China apparently has more than 500. It is extremely difficult if not impossible even for the most advanced naval ship to defend against an incoming sunburn missile.

Chinese navy might not be considered a blue-water navy yet as it has not built sufficient capability(no aircraft carrier yet) to carry out a war in distant ocean. But it will give a bloody-nose to any navies launching offensive operation around its shore.

I would consider China has a powerful(defensive) navy already.
I heard that the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system is capable of it, but ? Besides, we would undoubtedly launch several attacks against the ships carrying them. Without a launcher, you just have a high explosive paper-weight. Also, I don't believe we'd be the only navy moving in to deal with the situation.

Indeed:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/tagos-23.htm

I wonder what the US would do if the Chinese started deploying similar vessels just outside of the US territorial limit to track our own submarines.
We certainly wouldn't play chicken and try to damage the vessels.

You mean as the US has done numerous times in the past by banging into Soviet nuclear submarines?

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...page=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

Indeed.
.....threadjack?

So American ships are off the coast of China, spying, and they're calling the Chinese for getting too close?

Methinks if the US ships weren't there, someplace they have no business being, then this wouldn't happen.
We have no business in INTERNATIONAL waters? Well, international must have a different definition nowadays.

Besides, they weren't spying. They say the information gathered "could" be used militarily, not is being used militarily. And, as stated previously, it's not in Chinese territorial waters.
 
Top Bottom