• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China warplanes tail U.S. and Japan fighter jets; How Far Will China Go?

It is dangerous to have aircraft in that close proximity to each other.

While I don't think that a shoot down is going to be ordered on either side, a collision carries with it almost as much risk of an escalation.

I hope that doesn't come to pass, collision or shoot down, as it would really be bad for everyone.
 
So, is the OP wrong in saying "in its new maritime air defense zone", or is there a dispute over just where their air defense zone is?

It's quite a way from the USA.....

Just because a country lays claim to an area doesn't mean it's now theirs.

That is the problem.

They didn't have the right to claim it.

That area is the main transit area from Japan to Taiwan to Korea. The US and other countries have been transiting that area freely since WWII. Now, China says they have control over that area and we have to ask permission to transit that area.

They could have claimed the same for most of the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of Panama and parts of the Eastern Pacific, since they now own the Panama Canal and there's oil there as well. Surely you wouldn't agree that they could do that as well?
 
not enough oil to sattisfy everyone... not enough land for people to live in...

why do space colonys and alternative energy sources sound more appealing to me everyday?

We have to do something, but what, how, and at what cost are the questions.
 
March 31, 2001: US Spy Plane Crashes in China; Chinese Strip Plane of Sensitive Equipment

A US EP-3 Aries II spy plane collides with a Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea. The fighter crashes, killing the pilot; the EP-3 makes an emergency landing at a Chinese air base on China’s Hainan Island, a landing described as illegal by Chinese officials. 24 American crewmen—including three women and eight code-breakers—are taken into custody by the Chinese....

April 4-5, 2001: Powell Expresses ‘Regret’ Over US Spy Plane Crash

A day after Chinese president Jiang Zemin demands that the US apologize for the crash of a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet that cost the life of the Chinese pilot (see March 31, 2001), Secretary of State Colin Powell expresses US “regret” over the death of pilot Wang Wei. The Pentagon claims that the crew of the American EP-3 managed to destroy much of the most sensitive surveillance equipment on the plane before it crash-landed on China’s Hainan Island, but, notes GlobalSecurity’s John Pike, “This airplane is basically just stuffed with electronics. Short of blowing up the airplane, there’s unavoidably a limit as to what they could destroy.” Chinese authorities say they will continue to detain the 24 crew members while they investigate the incident...

April 6-7, 2001: US, China Still in Dispute Over Spy Plane Collision and Crew Detention

Chinese and US authorities continue to mediate the dispute over the crash of a US spy plane in Chinese territory (see March 31, 2001 and April 4-5, 2001). John Warner (R-VA), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, says the two sides are working on a written agreement on what happened, which would be approved by the leaders of both countries. Bush officials have been careful to call the detained US crew members “detainees”, but Senator Henry Hyde (R-IL) denounces the detention of the crew, calling them “hostages.” [CNN, 4/2001] Secretary of State Colin Powell is careful not to call the crew “hostages,” instead calling them “detainees[dq] who are being held [dq]incommunicado under circumstances which I don’t find acceptable.”....

April 8, 2001: US Refuses to Apologize for Collision of Spy Plane with Chinese Fighter

Negotiations and disputes over the collision and subsequent crash of a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet over Chinese waters continue (see March 31, 2001, April 4-5, 2001, and April 6-7, 2001). US officials warn long-term relations are at risk because of the dispute; Vice President Dick Cheney insists the US will not apologize over the incident. President Bush sends an unsigned letter to the wife of the slain Chinese pilot, Wang Wei, that expresses his “regret” over his death.....

April 11, 2001: China Returns Crew of Downed US Spy Plane, Keeps Plane

The dispute between the US and China over the downed US spy plane over Chinese territory, and the subsequent detention of the crew by the Chinese (see March 31, 2001, April 4-5, 2001, April 6-7, 2001, and April 8, 2001), is resolved. Chinese officials approve the letter from US officials expressing regret over the incident, and early that morning, the crew members are released into American custody. [CNN, 4/2001] The plane, filled with secret US surveillance equipment, remains in Chinese custody; it will eventually be disassembled on Hainan Island by US crews and returned to American custody in July, 2001. [US Pacific Command, 7/2001] Defense expert Paul Beaver says China’s acquisition of even part of the surveillance equipment—whatever was not destroyed by the crew before the plane was boarded by Chinese troops—is an incalculable loss to the United States.....

It is not publicly revealed until 2006 that President Bush secretly engaged Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar to conduct the delicate negotiations with the Chinese over the US aircraft and crew. Bandar, a close friend of the Bush family and a senior Saudi official, is an unusual choice for the negotiations, but Bandar has a special relationship with the Chinese due to Saudi Arabia’s various deals to purchase arms and missiles, and the increasing reliance of China on Saudi oil. Bandar, never a modest man, considers it a personal favor from the Chinese to have them release the 24 American hostages. Bandar also oversees the wording of the American “apology” to the Chinese for the incident, where the US apologizes for entering Chinese airspace to make an emergency landing, but does not apologize for the E-3’s legitimate intelligence-gathering mission. Secretary of State Colin Powell, nominally in charge of the US negotiations, only finds out about Bandar’s efforts through the NSA’s monitoring of Bandar’s phone calls to the Chinese; when he calls Bandar to congratulate him on his success, Bandar snaps to the Secretary of State, “How the hell do you know?”....

http://www.historycommons.org/conte...al_relations_33#us_international_relations_33

Something to think about.
 
Exactly, China is simply hedging its bets and seeing what it can get away with. Possession of the islands would allow for large extension of their maritime rights and any resources found therein... It also doesn't help that the Chinese are still pissed at the Japanese over the lack of a sufficient apology for its actions in the 30's and 40's.

So, is the OP wrong in saying "in its new maritime air defense zone", or is there a dispute over just where their air defense zone is?

It's quite a way from the USA.....

You learn real quick that China believes that all that she can see, is hers. Actually, I'd be hard pressed to think of a neighbor she hasn't been at war with in the last 100 years. Russia, India, Tibet, Vietnam, Japan....
 
Exactly, China is simply hedging its bets and seeing what it can get away with. Possession of the islands would allow for large extension of their maritime rights and any resources found therein... It also doesn't help that the Chinese are still pissed at the Japanese over the lack of a sufficient apology for its actions in the 30's and 40's.

Long lived hatreds die hard, and are a prime causal factor for military conflict. Just look at the Middle East. Those guys are still fighting in reprisal for the Crusades in the 11th through 13th centuries.
 
Fair point, still it isn't stopping them from doing sea Trials in the South China Sea.

China's aircraft carrier leaves for sea trials

No, you don't need planes for sea trials. But that's a long way from being operational.

Keep in mind, also, that just having a carrier doesn't mean you know how to run and use one effectively. That comes from experience and naval tradition, neither of which China has.
 
Japan seems to ignore the fact that it has demarcated a similar identification zone in the East China Sea for years, and has expanded this zone over the years. The western-most line of Japan's zone stretches all the way to China and is only about 135km (84 miles) from China's coast at the closest point.
 
Long lived hatreds die hard, and are a prime causal factor for military conflict. Just look at the Middle East. Those guys are still fighting in reprisal for the Crusades in the 11th through 13th centuries.

Im 3rd generation Dutch/British Boer... And I still think an airstrike on Paris would improve European discourse, what you gonna do...
 
It's an old Russian carrier they've been futzing with for years. They don't have any operational planes to fly from it.

The only thing old on that carrier is the ships hull. The carrier was completely gutted and rebuilt from the keel up with a new propulsion and power generating system, electronics. advanced radars, communications and weapons systems. There's little that is old on that carrier.

What the worlds naval community are asking, how will the Chinese use their carrier ? Sea lane control, air strike, surface warfare or as an ASW carrier ? Nobody knows yet.
 
While this may simply be posturing, it still is very dangerous to have war planes in such proximity to each other. My question: How likely is this to cause a conflict in the East China Sea? How serious should we take China's procolomation of "unspecified defensive measures against those that don't comply."

Not to derail the thread, but...

I just want to mention that I am very impressed with your posts I have read, and the threads you have started. You seem to be a pretty level headed person, and I enjoy reading you posts.

Glad you joined the forum. Just sayin'...
 
Psst, he is a hamster.
Not to derail the thread, but...

I just want to mention that I am very impressed with your posts I have read, and the threads you have started. You seem to be a pretty level headed person, and I enjoy reading you posts.

Glad you joined the forum. Just sayin'...
 
You learn real quick that China believes that all that she can see, is hers. Actually, I'd be hard pressed to think of a neighbor she hasn't been at war with in the last 100 years. Russia, India, Tibet, Vietnam, Japan....

All rising powers do the same... Macedonia/Rome/Mongol/Holy Roman/Nordic/Portuguese/Spanish/Dutch/French/British/American... and now the Chinese, India has similar disputes....
 
The Chinese can't sell us anything by shooting down a military plane. No, they're just posturing and making themselves feel important. In the meantime, why are we flying military planes in their airspace? Same reason, maybe?

It is Japan's Airspace. China publishing a map that says "oh, this is ours now" does not actually make it theirs.

Sherman123 said:
I'm somewhat concerned because the Chinese have backed themselves into a corner. They obviously did not anticipate such a strong reaction from the United States and the coordination of her allies in challenging this zone

If this is a plan, then my bet would be it looks like this:

Raise tensions to the point where Japan finally shoots down a Chinese UAV. Declare that to be an Act of War, and take some posturing moves. Then declare that you're willing to start talks over the issue, thereby placing Japan in a no-win situation. Either they can refuse, in which case China appears to be de-escalating and Japan looks like the aggressor (which is easy for her to do in that region of the world) thus degrading her ability to form closer defense relationships with the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, et. al., or Japan has to admit the disputed nature of the Senkakus (which - I would bet - would be what China is after).​

But I think it is very possible that you are correct that they simply did not anticipate a Combined US-JPN-ROK reaction like they've seen. I wonder if they read too much into our failure to defend red lines in Syria and focus on Iranian negotiations. :shrug:

But now that they have committed to it so strongly the only options are to retract it, enforce it, or not enforce it. Two of those choices are deeply embarrassing, and one would be catastrophic. I don't know what they were thinking, this is amateur hour at the Politburo.

Well, outside of the above scenario, yeah, they are in some trouble. The question that I wonder who is asking is what the leaderships self-perceived ability to back down is. If they are - as a growing number thing - in for some serious fiscal pain with their economic readjustment, then it may be that they can't afford to look weak on Restoring the Grand Tradition as well.
 
The only thing old on that carrier is the ships hull. The carrier was completely gutted and rebuilt from the keel up with a new propulsion and power generating system, electronics. advanced radars, communications and weapons systems. There's little that is old on that carrier.

What the worlds naval community are asking, how will the Chinese use their carrier ? Sea lane control, air strike, surface warfare or as an ASW carrier ? Nobody knows yet.

What's to "ask"? They have one, which isn't operational, and no planes. Some people make it seem like ZOMG, they have a CARRIER!!! They rule the seas now!!! They barely have a navy.
 
When I get home i will see if I can find the article I read on that carrier a while back. It kinda sounded like a clown car instead of a serious carrier.

It's the real thing:
j-15+flying+sharke+fighterChina++Aircraft+Carrier+Li  aoning+CV16+j-15+16+17+22+21+31+z8+9+10+11+12+13fighter+jet+aewc  +PLA+NAVY+PLAAF+PLANAF+LANDING+TAKEOFF+%282%29.jpg


 


Do you know what sailors call a Carrier without a Carrier Strike Group to support it?

HINT: It's also the name of a major retail chain, and it rhymes with "Schmarget". ;) :lol:





59b333386615e86cbd69e7ff166da391.jpg


:lol: this is a toy they are selling in Japan. Recognize that swoop-deck in the background?
 
Last edited:
It's the real thing:
j-15+flying+sharke+fighterChina++Aircraft+Carrier+Li  aoning+CV16+j-15+16+17+22+21+31+z8+9+10+11+12+13fighter+jet+aewc  +PLA+NAVY+PLAAF+PLANAF+LANDING+TAKEOFF+%282%29.jpg




They do the comparison here with the Ford-class (and by extension, Nimitz-class), but it's arguably more comparable to our Wasp-class. Somewhere in between, I suppose.
 
When I get home i will see if I can find the article I read on that carrier a while back. It kinda sounded like a clown car instead of a serious carrier.

No, you don't need planes for sea trials. But that's a long way from being operational.

Keep in mind, also, that just having a carrier doesn't mean you know how to run and use one effectively. That comes from experience and naval tradition, neither of which China has.

Honestly, it's not the aircraft carrier that we should be worried about. It's more of a statement piece at this point. The real threat comes from their ASBM (or Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles.) If they wanted to, they could lock down the East China Sea within moments by preventing any ship from entering the area. The strategy, coined Anti-Access/Area Denial (or A2/AD is a fancy term for layered defense across multiple areas such as land, sea, air. A2/AD seeks to wedge an asymmetrical dagger in the heart of America's seemingly insurmountable military edge. Weapons such as ultra-quiet diesel submarines, advanced mines, anti-ship weapons, and even cyber or anti-satellite weapons would seek to engage U.S. forces an in an effort to slow, stop or deter enemy combatants from entering a, let's say, air defense zone.

America's Anti-Access Nightmare Coming True
 
Back
Top Bottom