Speculation and facts on future Chinese vessels

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...

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...

Then please answer my quetion,

If a Chinese Naval Ship Operated by civilian "contractors" towing a mile long sonar cable right outside of 12 miles zone in international waters around Norfolk or King's Bay. What will your personal reaction be? what would you think the popular opinion in US be? what would you think the rehtoric on the hill will be? what will pentagon and joint chiefs do?

If US ever believed its own rehtoric about freedom of navigation (what a joke!) then its reaction will be muted. but you know that's probablly not likely the case, so please cut out the hogwash and come back to reality.

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...

The excuse USN and uncle sam used was the common law concept of Freedom of Navigation.

Which is hogwash because Freedom of Nav should not be abused so that it can impede other parties interests or pose security risks and challenges to anyoneelse.

(side note: very often in history Freedom of Nav has been abused that way, example: RN's blockade of Germany during WW1, where it intercepted neutrals ships on the high seas bounded for german ports carrying civilian goods, Yet Royal Navy announced during much of the pre-war years that it has the mission as guardian of the Freedom of Nav, same as USN is taking on itself today. ).

towing a sonar cable outside of someone's SSBN base clearly presents security risks and challenges to that party.

and turning on the active sonar and scaring all the fish away, or tangle trawler nets, certainly impede other parties interest. and pose maritime safty hazard.
Chinese Fishery Admin or whoever on the scene should perfectly have the right to cut those cables... at least for saftey reasons, if Freedom of nav is the logic that they followed.

I suggest those who think China is the one usually doing the harassing on the high seas...
to read the accounts of Chinese Naval task force that was sent to South Pacfic as the part of DF-5 full range ICBM test.

despite the fact that china previously announced the test range and it is no where near any land mass.
ANZAC, USN, RN, Soviet Navy, JMSDF. all sent destroyers and planes to harrass the task force. On the open Sea.
Freedom of Nav anyone?

kickars said:

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.

Click to expand...

Japan, as usual, has twisted the logic to serve its own end.

Those Chinese ships were in international wars and was just passing through,
These Chinese ships are not carrying LACMs or Training their guns on islands or towing mile long sonars buoys outside of Japanese naval bases.
AND USN, SKNavy, and RuNavy ships pass through these international water way every day.
WHy make a fuss about only PLAN ships?

And US and japan's favorite excuse Freedom of Nav should not be applicable to CHinese vessels?
Only freedom for some but not the others?

If those who took on themselves to uphold Freedom of Nav do not abide by the same rule, then the entire rationale becomes hollow. and there is no reason for anyoneelse to abide by tit.

Whining about cut cables or other harassment in disputed waters is borderline pointless especially if they were cut by boats belonging to a Chinese civilian agency.

sorry. OT.

Mod can delete all of mine post if you want.

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...

If the US wants respect for the use of the open sea, how is it that USN shot down Libyan aircraft in the '70's, an Iranian airliner in the late '80's, all over the open sea, respectively the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf?

i.e. said:

sorry. OT.

Mod can delete all of mine post if you want.

Click to expand...

i.e., Good efforts down there, no matter what happens to those posts, your voice being heard.


I personally meant it in #50 that "put in the US's shoes" .

"Speculation and facts on future Chinese vessels"? I meant it that China would set US as example, friendly or bully, China would get what ever needed in place, and undermining he whoever trys to undermine China's interest in the process. - and hoping doing it even better than the "Role Model"

i.e. said:

ANZAC, USN, RN, Soviet Navy, JMSDF. all sent destroyers and planes to harrass the task force. On the open Sea.
Freedom of Nav anyone?

Click to expand...

They went there to observe as such was their entitlement ....open sea and all that. Can you provide proof they were actually harassing. I fear its a case of "we said they said" and no-one can prove anything.