Chinese ships 'harassing' US navy

[Patroklos]

Exactly. We used them to accomplish our purposes then left them to clean up the mess we made. It's all about blowback and horrendously bad foreign relations.

The Rolling Airframe Missle (RAM) you mention is indeed capable of shooting it down, as is the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and the newer block Phalanx mounts not yet out to the fleet. (names/abbreviations added for those unfamiliar with the systems).

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

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.

 

[History_Buff]

Agreed.

Though all those agencies and civilian entities should be charged and fined for violating international maritime law. Reckless endangerment like that is illegal.

I sympathize with you on this one, the Chinese are being ridiculous and dangerous.

However, before your country goes trying to charge folks with crimes under international maritime law, it should probably get around to ratifying the international treaties that define said law. Customary Law just doesn't cut it these days.

There was a thread a few months ago about an older incident (2002 perhaps?) where a Chinese submarine surfaced in the midst of a US Carrier Group while the latter was in the middle of the Pacific.

 

[RedRalph]

From bbc.co.uk

China says a US Navy ship involved in Sunday's confrontation with its vessels off the southern island of Hainan violated international and Chinese law.

Foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said US complaints that five Chinese vessels had harassed the USNS Impeccable were "totally inaccurate".

Beijing says the ship was conducting activities within the waters of its special economic zone.

The US earlier complained to China's military attache over the incident.

It said the Chinese ships manoeuvred dangerously close to an unarmed US navy surveillance vessel while it was on routine operations in international waters 75 miles (120km) south of Hainan island.

The ships "aggressively manoeuvred" around the Impeccable "in an apparent co-ordinated effort to harass the US ocean surveillance ship", a Pentagon statement said.

The Pentagon identified the Chinese boats as a naval intelligence-gathering ship, a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel, and two small trawlers.

Sunday's incident followed days of "increasingly aggressive" acts by Chinese ships, US officials said.

'Confusing black and white'

China called the US complaints unacceptable. SOUTH CHINA SEA TENSIONS

Territorial claims from China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Brunei, Vietnam and Malaysia overlap in resource-rich sea
Hosts some of the world's busiest shipping lanes
China says the US was in its Exclusive Economic Zone - but the two sides disagree on what activities are allowed in an EEZ

"The US Navy ship Impeccable broke international law and Chinese laws and regulations," Mr Ma said.

"The US claims are gravely in contravention of the facts and confuse black and white," he added.

China views most of the South China Sea as its territory - but the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also lay claim to islands there.

Under international law, Chinese territorial waters extend 12 nautical miles (22km) off its coast and its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends 200 nautical miles.

China says that any intelligence data gathering by foreign governments within its EEZ is illegal - but the US does not agree with this.

The Impeccable is used to map the ocean floor with sonar. The information is used by the US navy to steer its own submarines or track those of other nations.

There is a large Chinese submarine base on Hainan island.

Aggressive manoeuvring by ships of rival navies in sensitive international waters is not uncommon, correspondents say.

But Washington was sufficiently disturbed by the incident involving the Impeccable to make its concerns public.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

There was a thread a few months ago about an older incident (2002 perhaps?) where a Chinese submarine surfaced in the midst of a US Carrier Group while the latter was in the middle of the Pacific.

I'm aware of that, but I wasn't aware I came out in support of it. Then again, it's hard to trust Patroklos since he came out in support of torturing innocent old ladies. At least I think he did.

 

[Patroklos]

I'm aware of that, but I wasn't aware I came out in support of it.

I actually thought I was responding to Form, not you EW. My fault. Though I restate the same statment with the modification of "you" to those as it is a quite relevant accusation for several participating in this thread.

Then again, it's hard to trust Patroklos since he came out in support of torturing innocent old ladies. At least I think he did.

Excuse me?

 

[BSmith1068]

I wonder what's behind this?

I would imagine that this has a major part in it:

From bbc.co.uk

China says that any intelligence data gathering by foreign governments within its EEZ is illegal - but the US does not agree with this.

The Impeccable is used to map the ocean floor with sonar. The information is used by the US navy to steer its own submarines or track those of other nations.

There is a large Chinese submarine base on Hainan island.

 

[History_Buff]

I'm aware of that, but I wasn't aware I came out in support of it. Then again, it's hard to trust Patroklos since he came out in support of torturing innocent old ladies. At least I think he did.

Ah, I had no idea. I presumed you simply hadn't seen that thread.

China says that any intelligence data gathering by foreign governments within its EEZ is illegal - but the US does not agree with this.

Well I suppose that's the root cause then. China needs to read the treaties they sign.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Please educate yourself as to where the continental shelf along the US coast lies.

Since I know perfectly well where it is and you apparently don't, I suggest you try to educate yourself.

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/regions/physio.html

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.

Are you actually trying to suggest that much short flight paths of ballistic missiles is unimportant? Is that why the US nearly went to war when the Soviet Union put IRBMs on Cuba, even though we had done the same in Turkey?

 

[chauism]

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?



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.

Tell me what you would do in this situation then.
You have a total stranger outside of your house, and leaning himself again the door and window with acoustical, x-ray and IR equipment with the intention to see and hear what you do inside of your house. Since he is outside of your house, so there is no trespassing here. obviously in this situation there is no police or anyone else to call for help. What would you do then?

 

[Patroklos]

So you are actually trying to suggest that much short flight paths of ballistic missiles is unimportant? Is that why the US nearly went to war when the Soviet Union put IRBMs on Cuba, even though we had done the same in Turkey?

You realize Cuba is 90mi away from the US and not 12mi right?

You realize SLBMs of the 1960s are an entirely different game from those of 80's right?

 

[Patroklos]

You have a total stranger outside of your house, and leaning himself again the door and window with acoustical, x-ray and IR equipment with the intention to see and hear what you do inside of your house. Since he is outside of your house, so there is no trespassing here. obviously in this situation there is no police or anyone else to call for help. What would you do then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[Fayadi]

I think the root of the problem is this United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

China is a signatory member and USA is not. What Chinese regard international law is, is not accepted by the US.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You realize Cuba is 90mi away from the US and not 12mi right??

You do realize the difference in flight time for a ballistic missle to travel that distance is a matter of seconds, right?

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?

You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QGnjFHe_SM\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

John Barry and Roger Charles of Newsweek wrote that Captain William C. Rogers III acted recklessly and without due care in their 13 July 1992 article.[26] They also accused the U.S. government of a cover-up which Admiral Crowe denied.[27] An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.[28] The Vincennes had been nicknamed 'Robocruiser' by crew members and other US Navy ships, both in reference to its AEGIS system, and to the supposed aggressive tendencies of its captain.[4]

On 6 November 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[29] However, the case relating to the Airbus downing, "the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988, (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", was dropped 22 February 1996 following settlement and reparations by the United States.[30]

Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[31] This contradicted earlier Navy statements.

Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." His comment referred to incidents on 2 June, when Rogers had sailed the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 2-3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile (6.4 km) separation, and opened fire on a number of small Iranian military boats. Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." He also said of Iranian forces he'd encountered in the area a month prior to the incident were "...pointedly non-threatening" and professional.[32] At the time of Rogers' announcement to higher command that he was going to shoot down the plane, Carlson is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He’s climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet." However, Carlson thought the Vincennes might have more information, and was unaware that Rogers had been wrongly informed that the plane was diving.

 

[chauism]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You have to prove to me how those two are not relevant at all.

while on the subject, "Western fighters were — and are — often sent to intercept USSR and Russian Tu-95s as they performed their missions along the periphery of NATO airspace, often in very close formation." The purpose of this interception is to force the bear off its intended path and escort it away from those countries boarder, in another word those fighter's intention is to harass it.
T-95 Encounters in the air

 

[History_Buff]

I think the root of the problem is this United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

China is a signatory member and USA is not. What Chinese regard international law is, is not accepted by the US.

For the most part, it's actually a non-issue. While the US hasn't ratified it (they did sign it) due to issues about seabed mining (it involves wealth redistribution, and the US has regarded it as 'too communist'), it regards the rest of the treaties as Customary Law.

However, if that BBC article is to be believed, the Chinese are claiming that intelligence gathering is illegal inside a nations Exclusive Economic Zone. There is in fact no such clause or reference within UNCLOS. The closest thing to that is the ban on the adverse construction of artificial islands and installations by foreign nations.

The Impeccable is clearly a ship, and is making no efforts to extract natural resources from the water column. There is therefore no legal justification for the harassment of the vessel. If Impeccable was within the territorial sea or contiguous zone, it would be a whole new issue, as foreign nations have no right to survey or gather intelligence within these waters. But it's not, nor would the US ever put this ship there.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think the root of the problem is this United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

China is a signatory member and USA is not. What Chinese regard international law is, is not accepted by the US.

Ruh roh. How interesting for a self-proclaimed US naval surface officer to not know that...

For the most part, it's actually a non-issue. While the US hasn't ratified it (they did sign it) due to issues about seabed mining (it involves wealth redistribution, and the US has regarded it as 'too communist'), it regards the rest of the treaties as Customary Law.

Um, the Wikipedia article disagrees with your assessment. Did you read it?

The United States strongly objected to the provisions of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty is unfavorable to American economic and security interests. The U.S. felt that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states. The U.S. also felt that the provisions might result in the ISA becoming a bloated and expensive bureaucracy due to a combination of large revenues and insufficient control over what the revenues could be used for.

In the United States there is vigorous debate over the ratification of the treaty, with criticism coming mainly from political conservatives who consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to U.S. national interests. A group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the Convention, claiming that it would impinge on U.S. sovereignty. The Bush administration, a majority of the United States Senate, and the Pentagon favored ratification.[4]

On April 24, 2004 Jeane Kirkpatrick (Reagan Administration United Nations Ambassador 1981-1985), testified against United States ratification of the treaty before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which she argued that "Viewed from the perspective of U.S. interests and Reagan Administration principles, it was a bad bargain," and that "its ratification will diminish our capacity for self-government, including, ultimately, our capacity for self-defense." [7]

From a link in that article:

http://cei.org/pdf/5352.pdf

The Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was negotiated in the late
1970s, an era when Third World nations looked to the U.N. to distribute resources from rich to poor nations.
President Reagan rejected American participation in the 1980s. Slight changes introduced in the 1990s
persuaded the Clinton Administration to endorse the treaty. The Bush Administration, perhaps because it is
eager to improve its internationalist credentials, has also endorsed the treaty. But it remains a bad deal for the
United States.
The Law of the Sea treaty does not simply set rules for commercial activity beneath the high seas. It
establishes a new international tribunal and new international bureaucracies to interpret and apply a wide range
of rules for activities on the seas—and to proceed with such rules even against U.S. objections. It threatens
to introduce international legal complications into national security missions of the U.S. Navy. It threatens to
complicate not only deep-sea mining—if it ever becomes a realistic commercial prospect—but also fi shing and
other commercial activities at sea and perhaps even on adjacent lands. Above all, it sets a very bad precedent.
In the past, the United States has jealously guarded its national sovereignty. It has never agreed to treaties
under which new standards can be imposed, without express U.S. consent, by the decision of international
bureaucrats or by coalitions of hostile—and potentially hostile—nations. What the United States does do in
many areas it should do in regards to this treaty—assert its rights under customary international law. The
Law of the Sea treaty is not necessary to secure claims which the U.S. already makes on this basis (regarding
economic rights in U.S. coastal waters and rights of passage elsewhere). It is a dangerous concession to
international fashion.

 

[Fayadi]

However, if that BBC article is to be believed, the Chinese are claiming that intelligence gathering is illegal inside a nations Exclusive Economic Zone. There is in fact no such clause or reference within UNCLOS. The closest thing to that is the ban on the adverse construction of artificial islands and installations by foreign nations.

The Impeccable is clearly a ship, and is making no efforts to extract natural resources from the water column. There is therefore no legal justification for the harassment of the vessel. If Impeccable was within the territorial sea or contiguous zone, it would be a whole new issue, as foreign nations have no right to survey or gather intelligence within these waters. But it's not, nor would the US ever put this ship there.

I got this sentence from the wikipedia article

"Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states"

When I look up the text and the closest meaning I get is this:

Article58

Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

My interpretation is this:
Basically you can have free navigation in the EEZ but if the coastal state does not like what you are doing in there. The coastal state have the right to restrict you?

 

[Patroklos]

You have to prove to me how those two are not relevant at all.

I most certainly do not, especially when the statment itself contains all the trappings of its irrelevance.

You do realize the difference in flight time for a ballistic missle to travel that distance is a matter of seconds, right?

Thats nice, unfortunetly for you that actual SUPPORTS my position that Russian SSBNs didn't approach 12nm (thats territorial waters, the reason that number is important) because of missile range.

You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QGnjFHe_SM\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

No Form, because that incident 1.) didn't happen anywhere near US terrotiory 2.) doesn't have anything to do with sying and 3.) happened during a active engagement of declared hostile forces.

What the hell do you imagine that has to do with this thread? Really, seriously, are you just posting things at random?

while on the subject, "Western fighters were — and are — often sent to intercept USSR and Russian Tu-95s as they performed their missions along the periphery of NATO airspace, often in very close formation." The purpose of this interception is to force the bear off its intended path and escort it away from those countries boarder, in another word those fighter's intention is to harass it.

And where is intercepting aircraft to determine intent and identity illegal? Can you site one scorce saying we ordered any aircraft out of international airspace? How about even the Russian's themselves saying anything we did endangered either aircraft?

Now contrast this with the Chinese who appoached within feet of the US vessel, cut off and stopped dead in front of it, threw inidentified objects in its path and then tried to attach a grappling hook to its tow cable. Does that sound at all the same to you?

Even on the high seas there is nothing odd about being shadowed or buzzed or escorted. Every time I went through the SOH there was an Iranian corvette right there alongside at a few thousand yards. They watched us, we watched them, and then we went our merry ways. Iranian P-3s buzzed us a few times, they approached at a slow speed and steady course, we didn't illuminate them with anything threatening, I waved at them from the bridge wing as they passed, they tip their wings in response and we both go along our merry way. That is NOT what the Chinese did here.

I think the root of the problem is this United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Unfortunetly for China that law is one of MANY maritime laws, unless you think the worlds seas have never been mentioned in international law up until now. Territorial waters (12nm) has been established and universally accepted for centuries. Just to give you an idea of how far back that goes, take a guess as to why it is 12nm.

The law you speak of goes above and beyond what the current statutes say, both say China is in the wrong.

Basically you can have free navigation in the EEZ but if the coastal state does not like what you are doing in there. The coastal state have the right to restrict you?

No, it means you have freedom of navigation there period, except for the the specific actions listed. It is an ECONOMIC exclusion zone, which means you can regulate ECONOMIC use. Not navigation. Its not like China can tell people to not use radar or radios, just to bring this to its logical conclusion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Thats nice, unfortunetly for you that actual SUPPORTS my position that Russian SSBNs didn't approach 12nm (thats territorial waters, the reason that number is important) because of missile range.

Once again, I never claimed they did, now did I? You seem to have great difficulty remembering what I just stated, or you are apparently deliberately generating straw men. Which is it?

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.

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.

What the hell do you imagine that has to do with this thread? Really, seriously, are you just posting things at random?

I posted an incident where a US Navy captain deliberately lied after firing upon surface craft and shooting down a commercial airline flight while in their territorial waters when the US was not at war with that country.

We certainly don't endanger the lives of any of the personel even after their daily and ceasless attacks on our DoD websites, which unlike operating a vessel in international waters is illegal. Try again.

It looks like we do endanger the lives of others after all. Just not Chinese ... yet.

And of course, you are referring to their supposed internet attack of public domain internet sites which contain no proprietary information, much less sensitive government information. And you know for a fact these are the premeditated acts of a sovereign country instead of the acts of a couple 14-year-olds with too much time on their hands. Hmm. it would appear that they should send someone to the arms shows and collect the literature from the booths. They could learn as much if not more.

OTOH you are vociferously complaining that a few Chinese vessels got too close to an obvious US naval spy vessel which was quite close to their territorial limit, or perhaps even inside it if you take into consideration they might actually own the disputed islands. Hmm.