East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

PLAAF actions violates various international aviation rules and regulations since the US plane was in international air space. It was a foolish act which could have gotten all killed including the pilot of the PLAAF plane.

It also show that the military is not under civil control which is also dangerous in it's own rights.

SamuraiBlue said:

PLAAF actions violates various international aviation rules and regulations since the US plane was in international air space. It was a foolish act which could have gotten all killed including the pilot of the PLAAF plane.

It also show that the military is not under civil control which is also dangerous in it's own rights.

Click to expand...

Or maybe it was a deliberate, sanctioned act to demonstrate to the US that its recent surveillance activities are considered a serious threat and they should back off, with the full understanding that such an action could be potentially dangerous.

I don't understand why you perceive these incidents as symptoms of some kind of civilian-military disconnect, when a simple, and more importantly, the most reasonable answer is that the civilian government is not happy with the US surveillance activities and have permitted their commanders a scope of options deliver the message across.


Suggesting the civilian government lacks control of the military would require a hell of a lot more support than these kind of incidents where a PLA ship or plane harasses a surveillance asset for getting too close for comfort.


(On the subject of civilian control over the military, it is also worth noting that no civilian governments of any kind can oversee every decision made in militaries or other autonomous agencies in real time. They give the military objectives and parameters, and it is up to the military to execute them. Civilian oversight all the way down to the unit and tactical level is impossible and needless. Even if this particular encounter was beyond what the government had sanctioned, trying to frame it as a loss of civilian control over the entire military is laughable. At best you can say the pilot was overzealous.)

SamuraiBlue said:

PLAAF actions violates various international aviation rules and regulations since the US plane was in international air space. It was a foolish act which could have gotten all killed including the pilot of the PLAAF plane.

It also show that the military is not under civil control which is also dangerous in it's own rights.

Click to expand...

The PLAAF wasn't anywhere near the incident.

Bltizo said:

Don't dumb this down.


But deliberately displaying aggressive actions is a warning to not come any closer. That is to say, the actions and the capability of the intercepted side have been sufficiently provocative to incite this kind of response.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that flying in international airspace is provocative?

Bltizo said:

Or maybe it was a deliberate, sanctioned act to demonstrate to the US that its recent surveillance activities are considered a serious threat and they should back off, with the full understanding that such an action could be potentially dangerous.

I don't understand why you perceive these incidents as symptoms of some kind of civilian-military disconnect, when a simple, and more importantly, the most reasonable answer is that the civilian government is not happy with the US surveillance activities and have permitted their commanders a scope of options deliver the message across.


Suggesting the civilian government lacks control of the military would require a hell of a lot more support than these kind of incidents where a PLA ship or plane harasses a surveillance asset for getting too close for comfort.

Click to expand...

Basically this kind of action only does harm in the international diplomatic scene which ONLY hurts the economy.
The action of Russia resulting to various sanctions by the western nations is an extreme example. The same applies at a moderate status in which PRC products would be not selected and/or completely denied entrance at public/private tenders. Basically it does no good for business and with US as major destination for export it's going to sting bad.

SamuraiBlue said:

It also show that the military is not under civil control which is also dangerous in it's own rights.

Click to expand...

You should read Peter Lee's China Matters Blog. His very well reasoned and researched article on this suggests there may be factions in US military/government trying to hijack US foreign policy. In fact, the last time it happens is Ukraine i.e. Victoria Nuland's "*expletive* EU". (By the way, that particular expletive was a literal quote spoken by Vitoria Nuland in a leaked recording of phone conversation, that's why I felt justified in using that. Sorry if anyone is offended.)

I submit that there are more evidence of US military/government officials out of control then Chinese. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can find no cases of Chinese government officials and military that goes against Poliburo in the matters of national security and foreign policy, including this case.

SamuraiBlue said:

Basically this kind of action only does harm in the international diplomatic scene which ONLY hurts the economy.
The action of Russia resulting to various sanctions by the western nations is an extreme example. The same applies at a moderate status in which PRC products would be not selected and/or completely denied entrance at public/private tenders. Basically it does no good for business and with US as major destination for export it's going to sting bad.

Click to expand...

Threatening your banker-- yeah, right. Just by causing US interest rate to rise one percent, you decrease US GDP by almost one percent, and US government budget by 5 percent. And China contribute to world economic growth *more* than US by quite a significant margin. And there are more nations doing more trades with China than with US.

Just try to sanction China over something US provoked -- you will see how many nations will follow US's lead.

Brumby said:

Are you suggesting that flying in international airspace is provocative?

Click to expand...

The whole concept of ADIZ was first unilaterally imposed by US, contrary to international law. That's the clearest answer to whether US thinks simple passage by aircraft regardless of types threatens national security and is hence a provocation.

Edit: ADIZ may be unavoidable nowadays due to range and speed of modern weapon, but personally I don't think legality-wise it's kosher. The reason is that you are imposing requirement to aircraft outside your airspace, which technically you have no jurisdiction because there is no international treaty or agreement authorizing it. Worse, when it is first established it, US just unilaterally announced it. So in all due respect, I failed to see how legal it is under international law.

One example is the concept of EEZ -- it arises out of UK/Iceland fishery war. But it does not become kosher until UNCLOS -- UK-Iceland agreement only bond themselves, not others. ADIZ are backed by threat of force and/or retaliation. Unless you subscribe to the idea that force makes right, I failed to see how that make it legal.

SamuraiBlue said:

Basically this kind of action only does harm in the international diplomatic scene which ONLY hurts the economy.
The action of Russia resulting to various sanctions by the western nations is an extreme example. The same applies at a moderate status in which PRC products would be not selected and/or completely denied entrance at public/private tenders. Basically it does no good for business and with US as major destination for export it's going to sting bad.

Click to expand...

Unless the PLANAF pilot in question was simply hotdogging, then you'd have to conclude CCP leaders at the highest levels ordered more robust responses to US surveillance. If so, then Communist leaders believe placing more pressure on US ships and aircrafts will serve to contest US military supremacy, and not pay meaningful economic price for it.

nemo said:

Jeff -- while you do have the power to restrict topics, would you mind ...

Click to expand...

You made valid points, and I feel the same way as you, but empirical evidence show arguments of the kind you described almost always degenerate into furballs, melees, and name-calling. So, as much as I'd like to see debates along those lines, I also understand why the moderators police them with vigor.