PLA Navy news, pics and videos

Bltizo said:

what iron man is getting at is that China has in the past made actions and announcements that suggest its position is that a nation with its EEZ should be able to deny military/spy ships from operating within it, and thus saying China is being a hypocrite.

Personally I've found the entire EEZ and military/spy ships matter to be a bit simplistic, because what China is more concerned about is the overall strategic positioning of military assets especially relative to population, economic and strategic military centres, the frequency/continuous presence of those assets relative to important centres, and the overall military balance.

Click to expand...

Oh, is that what China is "more" concerned about? It has never made such nebulous claims about what it was "more" concerned about before. It has however made very concrete claims about what this and that specific USN ship should and should not be doing in its EEZs, so I am not so convinced that your forest-through-the-trees generalization is in any way applicable to China's known and stated concerns about USN FONOPS and spying activities, or that therefore an occasional intrusion by China into US EEZ is somehow not or less hypocritical because it doesn't occur as often. There is no generalization to be spun here. Either you permit no spies in EEZs or you permit all of them. Anything else is inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Yvrch said:

China didn't say she will refrain from doing so unilaterally while others are doing it.
US is pretty much saying freedom of their fists starts right at the end of China's nose-tip.
There is no point to unilaterally refrain from such behavior unless there is a mutual reciprocity, or a sort of multilateral agreement.

Click to expand...

The US (in this case at least) is not being the hypocrite. Back during the Cold War both Russia and the US would routinely send their spy ships to just outside the 12nm territorial seas of the other, and all that would result is one side sends a ship to shadow the other side's spy ship. When China sent a spy ship to RIMPAC 2014, the US did not protest its presence to China, only noted that it was there. China on the other hand routinely protests to the US when it makes FONOPS in the SCS or sends spy ships/planes. China really has only two options to avoid hypocrisy: stop protesting USN FONOPS and spy ops, or stop sending its own spy ships into US EEZs. Of course, being hypocritical is normal for great nations so it's not some kind of outlying behavior. OTOH normality does not negate hypocrisy, and it's not wrong to point it out when it happens.

Iron Man said:

Oh, is that what China is "more" concerned about? It has never made such nebulous claims about what it was "more" concerned about before. It has however made very concrete claims about what this and that specific USN ship should and should not be doing in its EEZs, so I am not so convinced that your forest-through-the-trees generalization is in any way applicable to China's known and stated concerns about USN FONOPS and spying activities, or that therefore an occasional intrusion by China into US EEZ is somehow not or less hypocritical because it doesn't occur as often. There is no generalization to be spun here. Either you permit no spies in EEZs or you permit all of them. Anything else is inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Well it would hardly be sensible for China to actually describe why it is concerned with US spy ships operating in its EEZ, so instead they have to resort to wielding international agreements in the way which best suits its interests even if it is not perfect.

It isn't because China thinks there is some kind of logical interpretation of UNCLOS that means China believes EEZs of each nation should be interpreted in a way where each nation whose EEZ it belongs to should be able to control spy ships/military ships passage in and out of those waters.
Instead, it's because China is concerned with the significant presence of US military capability on its doorstep close to their important population/economic centres, which paired with consistent surveillance of Chinese strategic centres and bases causes China quite a bit more consternation.


If the US had no forward deployed military assets and bases close to China like it is now and if their surveillance of China was at a much lower intensity then I expect China would not be as concerned about US surveillance activities and wouldnt' bother interpret UNCLOS in any particular way regarding spy ships/military ships in EEZs.

Iron Man said:

The US (in this case at least) is not being the hypocrite. Back during the Cold War both Russia and the US would routinely send their spy ships to just outside the 12nm territorial seas of the other, and all that would result is one side sends a ship to shadow the other side's spy ship. When China sent a spy ship to RIMPAC 2014, the US did not protest its presence to China, only noted that it was there. China on the other hand routinely protests to the US when it makes FONOPS in the SCS or sends spy ships/planes. China really has only two options to avoid hypocrisy: stop protesting USN FONOPS and spy ops, or stop sending its own spy ships into US EEZs. Of course, being hypocritical is normal for great nations so it's not some kind of outlying behavior. OTOH normality does not negate hypocrisy, and it's not wrong to point it out when it happens.

Click to expand...

I think China consistently protests when the USN makes a fonop, but I don't think China does the same for US operations or spy ships/planes in the SCS generally. They tend to be a bit more selective for the SCS or other waters, but fonops are the only one where a Chinese protest is consistent and guaranteed.

Iron Man said:

The US (in this case at least) is not being the hypocrite. Back during the Cold War both Russia and the US would routinely send their spy ships to just outside the 12nm territorial seas of the other, and all that would result is one side sends a ship to shadow the other side's spy ship. When China sent a spy ship to RIMPAC 2014, the US did not protest its presence to China, only noted that it was there. China on the other hand routinely protests to the US when it makes FONOPS in the SCS or sends spy ships/planes. China really has only two options to avoid hypocrisy: stop protesting USN FONOPS and spy ops, or stop sending its own spy ships into US EEZs. Of course, being hypocritical is normal for great nations so it's not some kind of outlying behavior. OTOH normality does not negate hypocrisy, and it's not wrong to point it out when it happens.

Click to expand...

I think the question of to spy or not to spy within a certain distance of a sovereign nation is not a moral question.
If you are OK with that, we can proceed to have a meaningful conversation.

This article might shed some light on the "facts".

Bltizo said:

Well it would hardly be sensible for China to actually describe why it is concerned with US spy ships operating in its EEZ, so instead they have to resort to wielding international agreements in the way which best suits its interests even if it is not perfect.

It isn't because China thinks there is some kind of logical interpretation of UNCLOS that means China believes EEZs of each nation should be interpreted in a way where each nation whose EEZ it belongs to should be able to control spy ships/military ships passage in and out of those waters.
Instead, it's because China is concerned with the significant presence of US military capability on its doorstep close to their important population/economic centres, which paired with consistent surveillance of Chinese strategic centres and bases causes China quite a bit more consternation.

Click to expand...

You are making conclusions about what China is "concerned" with no evidence at all to back it up, only an attempt to argue why China would not explicitly state what you claim it believes. I don't even agree with your conclusion that it is somehow "hardly sensible" for China to explicitly state to the US why it is concerned with US spy ships operating in its EEZ in a general sense. In any case your argument boils down to the statements "there are too many of your spies too close to us so that's why we are mad" and "but our guys aren't so close all the time so we have a right to spy on you because we aren't up in your face as often". ROFLMAO

Bltizo said:

If the US had no forward deployed military assets and bases close to China like it is now and if their surveillance of China was at a much lower intensity then I expect China would not be as concerned about US surveillance activities and wouldnt' bother interpret UNCLOS in any particular way regarding spy ships/military ships in EEZs.

Click to expand...

How do you even know this is true? And what's "much lower"? This argument lacks specifics and has no real substance behind it because you can interpret "much lower" to mean whatever you want to accomplish your claim. Yes, if the US sent one spy ship to spy on China every other year, then China may not be mad every other day. Well how about once a year? Once a season? Once a month? The fact is that China is using a very specific argument to make a very specific claim, that military activities in one's EEZ can and should be regulated by the owner of that EEZ. There is no "if you're only spying once a year in my EEZ then it's ok".

Iron Man said:

You are making conclusions about what China is "concerned" with no evidence at all to back it up, only an attempt to argue why China would not explicitly state what you claim it believes. I don't even agree with your conclusion that it is somehow "hardly sensible" for China to explicitly state to the US why it is concerned with US spy ships operating in its EEZ in a general sense. In any case your argument boils down to the statements "there are too many of your spies too close to us so that's why we are mad" and "but our guys aren't so close all the time so we have a right to spy on you because we aren't up in your face as often". ROFLMAO

Click to expand...

Actually it's more like "there are too many of your spies too close to our big centres and too many very capable military assets close to those centres as well, whereas we have very few spy ships and very few capable military assets near your big centers, and so that's why we are mad".

But yes, that is the gist of it.

How do you even know this is true? And what's "much lower"? This argument lacks specifics and has no real substance behind it because you can interpret "much lower" to mean whatever you want to accomplish your claim. Yes, if the US sent one spy ship to spy on China every other year, then China may not be mad every other day. Well how about once a year? Once a season? Once a month? The fact is that China is using a very specific argument to make a very specific claim, that military activities in one's EEZ can and should be regulated by the owner of that EEZ. There is no "if you're only spying once a year in my EEZ then it's ok".

Click to expand...

I think it is a sensible interpretation for China's position, and I do not consider accepting China's position as it is without considering why it is what it is, to be logical.

Bltizo said:

Actually it's more like "there are too many of your spies too close to our big centres and too many very capable military assets close to those centres as well, whereas we have very few spy ships and very few capable military assets near your big centers, and so that's why we are mad".

But yes, that is the gist of it.

Click to expand...

And yet as it stands it is clearly hypocritical because the basis of China's allegedly legitimate butthurt is the interpretation of EEZ as conferring the owner the right to regulate foreign military activities which China has violated just as US has. The frequency of violation on either side is not relevant to the fact of mutual violation and therefore hypocrisy if one side claims that the other cannot spy in the same manner that oneself is spying.

Bltizo said:

I think it is a sensible interpretation for China's position, and I do not consider accepting China's position as it is without considering why it is what it is, to be logical.

Click to expand...

And yet this is an "interpretation" all your own, something China has never articulated. Ever.

Iron Man said:

The US (in this case at least) is not being the hypocrite. Back during the Cold War both Russia and the US would routinely send their spy ships to just outside the 12nm territorial seas of the other, and all that would result is one side sends a ship to shadow the other side's spy ship. When China sent a spy ship to RIMPAC 2014, the US did not protest its presence to China, only noted that it was there. China on the other hand routinely protests to the US when it makes FONOPS in the SCS or sends spy ships/planes. China really has only two options to avoid hypocrisy: stop protesting USN FONOPS and spy ops, or stop sending its own spy ships into US EEZs. Of course, being hypocritical is normal for great nations so it's not some kind of outlying behavior. OTOH normality does not negate hypocrisy, and it's not wrong to point it out when it happens.

Click to expand...

Sending a spy ship to monitor major military exercises (in international waters?) or a far flung major military base is significantly different from operating spy ships/planes and combattants off of another country's core territorial coastline, especially around disputed territories or within disputed territorial waters, while arming and instigating other parties to increase tensions.

This also begs the question whether this is the first time a Chinese spy ship is operating within Guam's EEZ? Is it payback for equivalent behavior the US has conducted? If it's payback then it's not hypocritical, especially since this is far from full blown payback.

Full blown payback would be if China arms, funds, conducts lawfare and PR on behalf of Guam or Hawaiian independence proponents, sends spy ships/planes and combattants to operate within Guam, Hawaiian, and mainland US EEZs and territorial waters, claims to take no position on Guam or Hawaiian independence, quits UNCLOS, and accuse the US of threatening its own international SLOCs to boot.

PanAsian said:

Sending a spy ship to monitor major military exercises (in international waters?) or a far flung major military base is significantly different from operating spy ships/planes and combattants off of another country's core territorial coastline, especially around disputed territories or within disputed territorial waters, while arming and instigating other parties to increase tensions.

This also begs the question whether this is the first time a Chinese spy ship is operating within Guam's EEZ? Is it payback for equivalent behavior the US has conducted? If it's payback then it's not hypocritical, especially since this is far from full blown payback.

Full blown payback would be if China arms, funds, conducts lawfare and PR on behalf of Guam or Hawaiian independence proponents, sends spy ships/planes and combattants to operate within Guam, Hawaiian, and mainland US EEZs and territorial waters, claims to take no position on Guam or Hawaiian independence, quits UNCLOS, and accuse the US of threatening its own international SLOCs to boot.

Click to expand...

I don't agree that it's significantly different or that it's some kind of "payback" for US spy activities. The quality of information obtained may be less, but the actual fact of violation based on your OWN standards is still present. What China needs to do is stop complaining about alleged US violations of its EEZs and build up the logistics capability to spy on the US just as Russia did, e.g. around Guam, Yokosuka, Ryukyu islands, Korean peninsula, and even Hawaii, Alaska, and the Western US coastline. It needs to shed its butthurtness and realize that the US is going to do it regardless of how much China complains, and instead focus on spying just as effectively as well.

Iron Man said:

I don't agree that it's significantly different or that it's some kind of "payback" for US spy activities. The quality of information obtained may be less, but the actual fact of violation based on your OWN standards is still present.
1 What China needs to do is stop complaining about alleged US violations of its EEZs and
2 build up the logistics capability to spy on the US just as Russia did, e.g. around Guam, Yokosuka, Ryukyu islands, Korean peninsula, and even Hawaii, Alaska, and the Western US coastline.
3 It needs to shed its butthurtness and realize that the US is going to do it regardless of how much China complains, and instead focus on spying just as effectively as well.

Click to expand...

1 Actually, it doesn't hurt China to communicate its stance vis-a-vis US stance on surveillance activities within EEZ. Sometimes, if you shout or speak louder, you tend to get immediate attention, if not agreement or comprehension.

2 China without doubt is working on those capabilities within the restraint of her resources.

3 That's exactly why you need to communicate the terms on which you want to play the game, being agreed to or not is a different matter.