Pentagon accuses Chinese vessels of harassing U.S. ship

Jeff Head said:

I doubt that there will be any futher military escalation.

A depth chage over the towed array would be, IMHO, a wreckless escalation to violence that has not occurred by either side to date and would result in much more serious consequences all around.

I pray that cooler heads prevail.

The PRC has shown that it is capable of using non-violent means to attempt to degrade the information that the Impeccable is gathering short of physical violence.

The US DDG is there to specifically prevent any escalation to violence against the Impeccable which is as an unarmed vessel and incapable of such escalation.

The incident wth the five smaller vessels is not the first in this regard. The more serious incident, IMHO, occurred a few days earlier when a PLAN FFG (an armed combatant) abruptly cut across the bow of the Impeccable at a range of 100 yards presenting a serious potential for collission.

As I said, at this point, hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the incident will fade as the Impeccable goes about its way and in a few days departs the area.

Click to expand...

I hope so, also.
But, even if the situation gets defused and China retracts, for the moment, from this disput,
this was a clear message of enmity maded against China, and I believe they will take this as a basis for their future military developments, if i understood it clearly.

bigstick61 said:

The items dumped into the water are more symbolic of navigational hazards than they are ones in actuality. However, dropping wood into the water is not the only action the Chinese vessels took. The ships themselves manoeuvered in such a fashion as to pose a danger to the Impeccable and its crew, hence why in one instance the ship's hoses were used. The Chinese created conditions which made a collision highly possible.

Click to expand...

Hoses were used because the Impeccable said "told to leave" was an "unknown intention", which by itself is a contradiction. It has nothing to do with the "navigating hazard". Furthermore, the captain of the Impeccable has the duty to prevent collisions as well, it's not all falls onto the Chinese.

bigstick61 said:

Also, the sonobuoy is not a navigational hazard, and such devices, especially on the open ocean, are not considered to be hazards by numerous nations, to include China (or else it wouldn't be able to use them itself). Sonobuoys remain close enough to the ship that for a ship to be in danger from it (if it could be placed in danger by it) would mean that the ship manoeuvered way too close to the Impeccable and thus was posing a danger itself.

Click to expand...

Thus, they poke the water to make sure they don't run over the sonobouy or get caught by the towing cable.

bigstick61 said:

You just don't manoeuver that close to other ships on the open ocean.

Click to expand...

Being close does not automatically mean posing danger. It has to be put into context as to how fast the ships are travelling. If both sides travel at 30 kts and they are 25 ft apart, then you would have a legimate argument.

bigstick61 said:

What the U.S. was doing was not research, and certainly nothing that had anything to do with the environment or natural resources. Second of all, by the U.S. not being a ratifier, it does not have to obey every provision of UNCLOS, which is not the case for a ratifying country.

Click to expand...

What the US considers as research, and what the US considers as lawful activities are only relevent for ships that are inside US's own EEZ. The event occured in China's EEZ, and if the Chinese deemed that a ship has violated its EEZ, then that's enough reason for it to take action.

alopes said:

I hope so, also.
But, even if the situation gets defused and China retracts, for the moment, from this disput,
this was a clear message of enmity maded against China, and I believe they will take this as a basis for their future military developments, if i understood it clearly.

Click to expand...

This is no more a message of "emnity" than the PRC's espionage and its own surveillance is against the US.

The fact is that both of these nations are among the world's greatest powers. Their interests are not perfectly aligned and so each nation takes measures to try and determine the capabilities, intentions, and technology of the other.

It was going on long before this incident and will continue long after.

The US is interested in finding out the capabilities of the PLAN's latest submarines. The PRC is interested in preventing that.

Just like the PRC is interested in pushing the envelope on the ASW capaibilities of American carriers and their battle groups, and the US is interested in preventing that.

There will be give and take...in certain instances there will be increased tensions...but this is not unusual and I believe as long as cooler heads prevail, the tit for tat, cat and mouse game of espionage and surveillance will continue. Sometimes benefitting one side, sometimes benfitting anopther...but not unusual, or a cause for major saber rattling or war in the least.

Each side will actually benefit in terms of their military as they push for more funds to stay ahead of the curve.

Kongo said:

Who said China was in the wrong when spying in Japan's EEZ? I'm just pointing out that China is being hypocritical when it accuses the Impeccable of carrying out illegal activities in its EEZ when China itself is doing what the US is doing, except this time in Japan's EEZ. I don't hear anyone coming out to condemn China's hypocritism in this case, or are you all a bunch of hypocrites?

...

So is China being hypocritical the same way people here are accusing America of being hypocritical, or not? Or is it just a bunch of hypocrites accusing America of being a hypocrite?

Click to expand...

Like I have pointed out before, you have one country that had sunk ships in its own EEZ, and you have another that spy in other people's EEZ. There is nothing hypocritical about China copying both of them. If anything, some of those who are defending US's actions are being hypocritical for saying China can't do the same.

Kongo said:

That's because Japan didn't try obstruct China's vessels by carrying out activities that puts Chinese vessels in danger, such as dropping wood in front of the vessel. If Japan did that it too would be in the wrong by trying to impose juridiction where it had had no right to do so.

Click to expand...

Irrelevent, as boats have been sunk by Japan.

Kongo said:

And EEZ only allows jurisdiction over actions which are concerned with economic exploitation of the designated EEZ. Otherwise they are equivalent to international waters. Understand that.

Click to expand...

Understand this: they have jurisdiction over all ships (except warships) in their EEZ, but they could only arrest the ship, for example, if the ship has violated China's regulations regarding resources.

Engineer said:

Understand this: they have jurisdiction over all ships (except warships) in their EEZ, but they could only arrest the ship, for example, if the ship has violated China's regulations regarding resources.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but they do not have complete jurisdiction over other nation's vessels who are transiting their EEZ, military or not. The do have jurisdiction over natural resource exploration and exploitation, marine science research, and environmental protection in the EEZ. So, if someone violates those provisions, they can exercise jurisdiction...but if they are not, those vessels enjoy free passage for all other activities under international law.

To try and tie the USNS Impeccable to natural resources, marine sciences, or environmental damage is a stretch and everyone knows it. The Impreccable is there for one purpose, to tag PLAN submarines acoustiaclly and otherwise from well outside territorial waters and this is the issue that is generating the event and everyone knows it.

Like I said, both nations routinely do this and the best course is for both to try and non-violently impeded or reduce the effectiveness...as has been done for years by all major powers.

If either or both nations step across the line and try and physically restrain or damage such surveillance missions (as long as they are outside territorial limits and as long as they are not directly threatening themselves), then things easily can escalate out of control.

I hope and pray that does not happen.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, but they do not have complete jurisdiction over other nation's vessels who are transiting their EEZ, military or not. The do have jurisdiction over natural resource exploration and exploitation, marine science research, and environmental protection in the EEZ. So, if someone violates those provisions, they can exercise jurisdiction...but if they are not, those vessels enjoy free passage for all other activities under international law.

To try and tie the USNS Impeccable to natural resources, marine sciences, or environmental damage is a stretch and everyone knows it. The Impreccable is there for one purpose, to tag PLAN submarines acoustiaclly and otherwise from well outside territorial waters and this is the issue that is generating the event and everyone knows it.

Like I said, both nations routinely do this and the best course is for both to try and non-violently impeded or reduce the effectiveness...as has been done for years by all major powers.

If either or both nations step across the line and try and physically restrain or damage such surveillance missions (as long as they are outside territorial limits and as long as they are not directly threeatening themselves), then things easily can escalate out of control.

I hope and pray that does not happen.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right, and Engineer's argument does really make a major stretch to try to justify Chinese actions, beyond the law, really. China isn't even claiming they were doing research, or exploiting natural resources, or anything like that. They are accusing them of surveillance, which they believe they have the right to regulate, which under the law they do not.

The Chinese need to cool it and not take any further endangering action. It can only get uglier from here. The U.S. warship is there, because unfortunately we cannot be sure the Chinese will not take such actions again or go even further.

Engineer said:

Hoses were used because the Impeccable said "told to leave" was an "unknown intention", which by itself is a contradiction. It has nothing to do with the "navigating hazard". Furthermore, the captain of the Impeccable has the duty to prevent collisions as well, it's not all falls onto the Chinese.


Thus, they poke the water to make sure they don't run over the sonobouy or get caught by the towing cable.


Being close does not automatically mean posing danger. It has to be put into context as to how fast the ships are travelling. If both sides travel at 30 kts and they are 25 ft apart, then you would have a legimate argument.

Click to expand...

Your are completely twisting everything, which just goes to show how far you have to stretch things to try to make your argument at least make some sense. The Impeccable did not say that it did not know what told to leave means, although just because it is told to leave does not mean it knows how the Chinese will actually act. The unknown intentions, though, were in relation to the vessels which got close enough that it seemed they could collide or be used for boarding. There was no way for Impeccable to know for sure, especially given the dangerous and threatening actions of the other ships during the incident.

And you know your assertion about the sonobuoy is bollocks. The sonobuoy has nothing to do with being a navigational hazard on the high seas if all rules are respected, and this is common knowledge and the way things are done pretty much everywhere. Merchant ships would not even know anything about a sonobuoy or its deployment. You also know damn well that the Chinese weren't trying to avoid it; they were trying to part the cable. Also, if the ship is close enough where it can grab it with hooks, it would already be too late if it were a navigational hazard, or it would clearly be in the clear. The sonobuoy has nothing to do with safety. Ships manoeuvering dangerously close, close enough for there to be collision potential, is a safety issue, and is illegal.

Also, the captain did what he could to avoid collision, and if he had done so poorly or not tried, I think a collision would have definitely occurred. However, the onus is primarily on the Chinese, mostly on them in fact, since it was their actions which created the problem in the first place. The Impccable was not doing anything illegal or posing dangers at the time.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, but they do not have complete jurisdiction over other nation's vessels who are transiting their EEZ, military or not. The do have jurisdiction over natural resource exploration and exploitation, marine science research, and environmental protection in the EEZ. So, if someone violates those provisions, they can exercise jurisdiction...but if they are not, those vessels enjoy free passage for all other activities under international law.

Click to expand...

Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. You can call a glass half empty or half full, but it is still filled. They may find a ship that hasn't conduct any violation, and they will have to let it go, but they are exercising their jurisdiction nonetheless. This doesn't need justification on my part or anyone else's.

Engineer said:

Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. You can call a glass half empty or half full, but it is still filled.

Click to expand...

Well, actually, if something is half empty or half filled, it is still only half...not full.

Nation's only have legal jurisdiction in very specific instances within an EEZ.

Those are the facts.

They may well have the power and opportunity to halt, detain, impeded, block, or board other vessels as you say...but that is not the same as having the legal jurisdiction to do so except for those specific instances.

If any nation abuses it, then they can expect other nations to take measures to prevent that abuse...like by sending a heavily armed combatant to escort the object of the absue.

We all know what the issue is here. It is submarine surveillance, and it s the US capablility to conduct that surveillance from well outside the full territorial limit.

The PRC wants to prevent it. In the EEZ, as long as they are using non-violent means to impeded or degrade it, they are well within their rights and are doing something that any nation would and probably should do.

But when they take physical action to try and force the surveillance ship to turn aside or stop by sending one or more vessels of their own to cross paths in such a way as to present navigation hazards and preventing free passage in the EEZ, which all vessels not particpating in the specific activites identified in the EEZ are legally entitled to, then they are over-reaching and can expect other nations to react against such activities.

I know both sides interpret it the way they want and from a perspective most advantagous to their own interests.

That is natural.

But I believe the facts and conditions here are clear and can only hope that now this issue will fade without further escalation.