Speculation and facts on future Chinese vessels

I mean, sorry to make an observation but, they had it coming.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The ship was in the open sea. Well beyond the internationally recognized 12 mile limit. 75 miles from the nearest point of Chinese territory. Nope the Chines were in the wrong on that account. Period. Just my opinion.

Question.. when the USN sent the guided missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93) to protect the Impeccable why did not the Chinese respond in kind?

bd popeye said:

Wrong. The ship was in the open sea. Well beyond the internationally recognized 12 mile limit. 75 miles from the nearest point of Chinese territory. Nope the Chines were in the wrong on that account. Period. Just my opinion.

Question.. when the USN sent the guided missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93) to protect the Impeccable why did not the Chinese respond in kind?

Click to expand...

Maybe they didn't want to escalte the situation?

And I don't know, while the law may allow for being a military vessel being within another country's exclusive economic zone freely (?), if you send in a surveillance vessel a few kilometers from a major submarine base you cannot expect to be unchallenged.
If any country was in a similar position, with mulitple potentially hostile countries surrounding it, having a weaker navy and only one major SSBN base and another goes and sends a "civilian" operated surveillance ship... well the reaction would be the same imho.

bd popeye said:

Wrong. The ship was in the open sea. Well beyond the internationally recognized 12 mile limit. 75 miles from the nearest point of Chinese territory. Nope the Chines were in the wrong on that account. Period. Just my opinion.

Question.. when the USN sent the guided missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93) to protect the Impeccable why did not the Chinese respond in kind?

Click to expand...

Actually the US was in violation of the UNCLOS

Article 88

Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.

Article 301

Peaceful uses of the seas

In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention, States Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

UN Charter

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

nameless said:

Actually the US was in violation of the UNCLOS

Article 88

Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes

The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.

Article 301

Peaceful uses of the seas

In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention, States Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

UN Charter

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Click to expand...

Quoting the UNCLOS is pointless because the US never ratified it.
The only way to get the US to respect your Sovereignty is through use of language they can understand...force, but no one has that capability so tough luck.

xywdx said:

Quoting the UNCLOS is pointless because the US never ratified it.
The only way to get the US to respect your Sovereignty is through use of language they can understand...force, but no one has that capability so tough luck.

Click to expand...

Mostly agree though the US does adhere to certain parts of the UNCLOS when it suits their interests.

bd popeye said:

Wrong. The ship was in the open sea. Well beyond the internationally recognized 12 mile limit. 75 miles from the nearest point of Chinese territory. Nope the Chines were in the wrong on that account. Period. Just my opinion.

Question.. when the USN sent the guided missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93) to protect the Impeccable why did not the Chinese respond in kind?

Click to expand...

How about a Chinese surveillance ship cruising 75 miles from Norfolk or San Diego in your opinion?

nosh said:

How about a Chinese surveillance ship cruising 75 miles from Norfolk or San Diego in your opinion?

Click to expand...

hahaah ... a good point, the US would storm to Chinese and saying it is offensive move, bla bla bla

nosh said:

How about a Chinese surveillance ship cruising 75 miles from Norfolk or San Diego in your opinion?

Click to expand...

That's the problem the Chinese navy (probably air force) is facing at the moment. Same thing happened very recently about Chinese naval ships being close to Japan's coast. I can't remember Japanese media ever complained about US ships being too close to their coast. Wait... US even has naval bases in Japan... You see what I'm getting here. At the end of the day, we have to remember and accept since the very beginning of human history, there isn't right or wrong, histories were/are always written and told by the winners (who says winners were/are always right and are heroes?). Laws/rules/moral standards were/are always enforced and set by the most powerful. So, just relax regarding to most international relation related news. Coz, with different social and educational backgrounds there'll be no end to these kind of discussions.

Don't forget that surveillance plane crash landed in Hainan all these years ago. Just imagine if a PLAN's war plane is flying short distance to Miami, and crashed a US F-15 with its pilot been killed... (21st century cold war or even third world war?) I don't think there'll be a single country on the earth will do anything other than condemn China. But what happened with the incident near Hainan was that most countries east and west condemned China for causing its own pilot's death and the crash landing of that USN's Plane instead.....

We're sooooo off the topic. Let's get back to 'future Chinese vessels', now.

xywdx said:

Quoting the UNCLOS is pointless because the US never ratified it.

Click to expand...

True.

Although, having had so many countries in the world signing and ratifying UNCLOS, it is now considered international customary law. Hence, even though US did not sign or ratify it, they are still supposed to be subjected to UNCLOS.

Spartan95 said:

True.

Although, having had so many countries in the world signing and ratifying UNCLOS, it is now considered international customary law. Hence, even though US did not sign or ratify it, they are still supposed to be subjected to UNCLOS.

Click to expand...

Since like Kyoto protocol, US didn't sign (or make effect) the UNCLOS on her own right, I have no comments if I "put myself into US's shoes". (I really am!)

Bltizo said:

Maybe they didn't want to escalte the situation?

And I don't know, while the law may allow for being a military vessel being within another country's exclusive economic zone freely (?), if you send in a surveillance vessel a few kilometers from a major submarine base you cannot expect to be unchallenged.
If any country was in a similar position, with mulitple potentially hostile countries surrounding it, having a weaker navy and only one major SSBN base and another goes and sends a "civilian" operated surveillance ship... well the reaction would be the same imho.

Click to expand...

True and true, China simply can't afford to any kind of "confrontation" with US.

But since the power houses of the world all play like that, China won't lag behind, to commit her own civilian surveillance capabilities. - you can't just "torpedo" an Chinese Yuan Wang ship bypassing mediterranean, do you?