East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

[Blitzo]

Interception of spy planes is perfectly normal as is flying them. After all there are literally thousands of photographs of Russian Birds with American fighters in tow. The issue is the attitude towards the spy plane. The description of the incidents both the EP3 and this latest show PLAAF pilots looking to swap paint. Highly aggressive behavior in the form of ramming, wing smacking and in this case a full stunt show over the bird. By contrast American interceptions are downright cordial "You Boys better go home now" being the biggest stunt pulled by a raptor pilot on a interception of Iranian fighters.as long as the spy bird is in international air space she is open to do as she pleases. That's a fact. A interception in international air space is no issue either but there are rules of conduct that are supposed to be followed between the interceptor and the intercepted, that's what's wrong.

Thing is, this particular interception was likely preceded by many other, far less confrontational ones.

If what the pentagon is claiming actually happened then it was without doubt a potentially dangerous act. But to only focus on the individual event rather than the strategic causes of it is tunnel vision and will only lead to more events like this in future.

If you continue backing someone into a corner they will eventually start to resist.

 

[Brumby]

Putting the shoe on the other foot, turning the tables, call it what you want.

The entire point of hypothetical situations is to judge the reasonableness of actions and ideas.

Typically in debate of ideas, counterfactuals are avoided because you are entering into an alternate universe.

 

[Blitzo]

I would differ in the way you have outlined it.

The contention is not in the interception but rather the aggressive nature of it that can seriously lead to lives being lost and potentially escalating the issue.

I don't think anyone is contesting whether the act itself was aggressive or potentially dangerous.

The reason for the act is what we here are quibbling over, or at least the way I've interpreted the last few pages.

Typically in debate of ideas, counterfactuals are avoided because you are entering into an alternate universe.

Sometimes that's the only way we can put things in the real world into perspective.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Thing is, this particular interception was likely preceded by many other, far less confrontational ones.

If what the pentagon is claiming actually happened then it was without doubt a potentially dangerous act. But to only focus on the individual event rather than the strategic causes of it is tunnel vision and will only lead to more events like this in future.

If you continue backing someone into a corner they will eventually start to resist.

This type of flight is a common occurrence, so why should the PRC consider it a threat? We regularly see flights of Russian Aircraft intercepted by American fighters over the pole, we see Russian fighters in tow behind American aircraft over the over side. When a nation reaches a set level of power its normal to have people poking in to take a look. Your own statement says this was likely a regular event until the interceptor started his barrel rolls.

 

[Blitzo]

This type of flight is a common occurrence, so why should the PRC consider it a threat? We regularly see flights of Russian Aircraft intercepted by American fighters over the pole, we see Russian fighters in tow behind American aircraft over the over side. When a nation reaches a set level of power its normal to have people poking in to take a look. Your own statement says this was likely a regular event until the interceptor started his barrel rolls.

It is a threat because of the forward deployed US forces in uncomfortably close proximity to sensitive targets around the region.

Russian surveillance or bomber flights close to the US aren't much of a threat because Russia lacks any conventional forces deployed around north america to present a meaningful strategic threat. All they will do is pass by, collect a bit of information, but they will remain unable to act on it because they lack any assets that are capable of it.


The threat of a surveillance aircraft or ship is entirely dependent on the proximity of other military forces close by that are able to act on the intelligence it gathers.
That is why the occasional Chinese ELINT ship near Hawaii is no particular threat to the US. That is also the same reason why Japan is so sensitive about Chinese intelligence flights around some of its islands, because the intelligence those PLAAF planes gather could be transformed into meaningful action by other PLA forces such as conventional missile, naval, or air.

Of course, Japan is also under US protection, and the PLA's offensive forces are still fairly minimal, compared to the offensive forces the US has deployed around China.

 

[Equation]

No Equation, its an official statement by the DOD from the Pentagon.

So still is an opinion from the DOD. The question still stands, the DOD opinion is not law written in stone.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

It is a threat because of the forward deployed US forces in uncomfortably close proximity to sensitive targets around the region.

Russian surveillance or bomber flights close to the US aren't much of a threat because Russia lacks any conventional forces deployed around north america to present a meaningful strategic threat. All they will do is pass by, collect a bit of information, but they will remain unable to act on it because they lack any assets that are capable of it.


The threat of a surveillance aircraft or ship is entirely dependent on the proximity of other military forces close by that are able to act on the intelligence it gathers.
That is why the occasional Chinese ELINT ship near Hawaii is no particular threat to the US. That is also the same reason why Japan is so sensitive about Chinese intelligence flights around some of its islands, because the intelligence those PLAAF planes gather could be transformed into meaningful action by other PLA forces such as conventional missile, naval, or air.

Of course, Japan is also under US protection, and the PLA's offensive forces are still fairly minimal, compared to the offensive forces the US has deployed around China.

You do understand that what you wrote is just an excuse for a totally impermissible and reckless act.
A stern warning can be displayed without hotdogging which is just plain amateurism in nature which can result in miscalculation with one false move.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

But that's suggest that the PRC already believes the US is aiming for a conflict. That the knowledge gained in these flights is directly actionable now and that US forces are even as we speak sharpening there knives for the charge.
As it stands I agree US and PRC relations are stresses. Since the end of the Cold War the Peoples Republic Of China and the West as a whole have set into a unspoken state of Cold War. But I hardly believe that these flights are threat enough to justify the PLA's Reaction. Yes there are forces staged around the Pacific but then in the Cold war the US and NATO were flying these very same type of flights near Russian controlled territory and the US and NATO had the forces in place to launch operations using actionable intelligence from them to. It seems more like a double standard is trying to be used. The PRC is saying we can spy on you but you cant on us. Which will never work. The US has allies and interest in the pacific and Asia that have been feeling the PRC's push, there expansionist take on the South and East China seas have ratcheted up tensions and the US would be a really lousy Allie if it didn't take steps to monitor the events there. The justification that these flights are painting the PRC into a corner is really reversed the PRCs actions have made the decision to launch such flights a priority.

 

[Equation]

You do understand that what you wrote is just an excuse for a totally impermissible and reckless act.
A stern warning can be displayed without hotdogging which is just plain amateurism in nature which can result in miscalculation with one false move.

Is it more dangerous than spying near someone's air space and NOT expect any kind of consequences to happen?

 

[Blitzo]

You do understand that what you wrote is just an excuse for a totally impermissible and reckless act.
A stern warning can be displayed without hotdogging which is just plain amateurism in nature which can result in miscalculation with one false move.

You can bet stern warnings have been issued in the past, and it's been a consistent position of the PRC that such surveillance flights are considered a serious threat.

While the potential for danger is regrettable, I think it's also understandable from the PRC position to want to send a clearer message of their position especially if previous words were falling on deaf ears.