PDA

View Full Version : Chinese Warship Steals US Submersible Drone.....



MMC
12-16-2016, 12:26 PM
:shocked: WTF.....just came and gangstered our property, and we don't do anything. The Peep hasn't even responded. What say ye?




A U.S. vessel had its underwater drone stolen by a Chinese warship "literally right in front of the eyes of the American crew" on Thursday, a Department of Defense official told CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-underwater-drone-stolen/index.html) Friday.


The USNS Bowditch was sailing near the South China Sea when it stopped in the water to pick up two underwater drones. Suddenly, a Chinese war ship that had been shadowing the Bowditch put a small boat into the water. The small boat then came up alongside the U.S. ship and took one of the drones.


The U.S. vessel tried to plead with the Chinese ships but received no response, the official said.....snip~


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/12/16/chinese-warship-steals-us-underwater-drone-n2260571

Beevee
12-16-2016, 12:34 PM
I wonder what were the development costs of what will be classed as a useless piece of military equipment once a deterent has been produced.

Cletus
12-16-2016, 12:38 PM
They should have sunk the Chinese boat and/or destroyed the drone.

Beevee
12-16-2016, 12:42 PM
They should have sunk the Chinese boat and/or destroyed the drone.

Sink a Chinese boat in international waters? That's your solution?

MMC
12-16-2016, 12:42 PM
I wonder what were the development costs of what will be classed as a useless piece of military equipment once a deterent has been produced.

So you approve of having property gangstered from others? In this case.....it would be an act of piracy. I am sure the Chinese have their own drone to measure oceanic conditions.

Did you say you were aware of the Chinese and how they copycat and steal others designs?

MMC
12-16-2016, 12:44 PM
Sink a Chinese boat in international waters? That's your solution?

Did you not see that he said or destroy the drone? Or do you seek to deny that reality.

Beevee
12-16-2016, 12:44 PM
Do I approve? Did I say that? Where?

Beevee
12-16-2016, 12:45 PM
Did you not see that he said or destroy the drone? Or do you seek to deny that reality.

Did you not see that he said sink the Chinese boat?

Cletus
12-16-2016, 12:45 PM
Sink a Chinese boat in international waters? That's your solution?

In this particular instance, yes. It would have been a completely appropriate and lawful response to an act of piracy, and yes, it does meet the definition of piracy.

Beevee
12-16-2016, 12:47 PM
Then I accept your definition.

MMC
12-16-2016, 12:50 PM
Did you not see that he said sink the Chinese boat?

And or destroy the drone. How did you miss that? Do you know how Piracy can be dealt with in international waters?

Beevee
12-16-2016, 12:52 PM
No, I didn't. But I do now.

DGUtley
12-16-2016, 12:58 PM
This is an interesting provocation if true. Clearly, the Chi-coms are pushing the envelope.

MMC
12-16-2016, 01:07 PM
This is an interesting provocation if true. Clearly, the Chi-coms are pushing the envelope.


I wonder if they told BO peep, as he was heading to Hawaii.


The US got no answer from the Chinese on the radio when it said the drone was American property, the official said.




As they turned away, the Chinese did come up on the radio and indicated they were returning to their own operations.


The Pentagon has not officially commented on the incident.

Although it's unclear what the motivation was for the Chinese, the seizing of the drone comes on the heels of other provocative incidents that have happened since President-elect Donald Trump received a congratulatory call with Taiwan's President (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/03/politics/trump-taiwan-china-analysis/), a violation of the US's agreement with China's "One China policy". China publicly voiced their disapproval (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/china-trump-one-china-reaction/index.html)of that incident and contacted the White House (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/politics/white-house-trump-china/)at the time.....snip~


http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-underwater-drone-stolen/index.html

Cigar
12-16-2016, 01:41 PM
Maybe there's a Trojan Horse Nuclear Bomb inside ... :laugh:

DGUtley
12-16-2016, 01:56 PM
Maybe there's a Trojan Horse Nuclear Bomb inside ... :laugh:

Lol. The old THNB.

waltky
12-16-2016, 02:59 PM
Hey, dey stole our dinghy thingy!...
:angry:
China 'seizes US vessel' in S China Sea
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 - The US demands that China returns a US underwater research vessel taken in the South China Sea, say US officials.


The Chinese navy seized the US underwater research vessel in the South China Sea on Thursday, the US alleges. The incident took place just as the USNS Bowditch, an oceanographic survey ship, was about to retrieve it. The device, dubbed an "ocean glider", was used to test water salinity and temperature, officials say. The data was part of an unclassified programme to map underwater channels, Pentagon spokesman Capt Jeff Davis told reporters. "It was taken" by China, Capt Davis said during a press briefing on Friday. "The UUV [unmanned underwater vehicle] was lawfully conducting a military survey in the waters of the South China Sea," he added. "It's a sovereign immune vessel, clearly marked in English not to be removed from the water - that it was US property."

Analysis - Carrie Gracie, BBC China Editor

The Chinese seizure of a US navy drone only serves to increase uncertainty and tension between the US and China, coming in the same week as a US think tank published satellite images of anti-aircraft missiles on China's artificial islands in the South China Seas and in the aftermath of remarks from US President-elect Donald Trump criticising China for building what he called a "massive fortress" in the region. Despite previous statements that China had no intention of militarising the islands, the Chinese Defence Ministry defended what it described as "necessary military facilities" which it called "proper and legitimate". Since Mr Trump questioned the so-called "One China" policy which Beijing describes as the 'political bedrock' of the US China relationship, China has also mounted fighter exercises over the Taiwan Strait.


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/DCD2/production/_93003565_bowditch.jpg
USNS Bowditch

The Obama administration has reaffirmed what it called its "unwavering commitment" to the "One China" policy but the seizure of a US navy drone may be Beijing's way of sending a message to the incoming administration that it too has ways of disrupting expectations and upsetting the status quo. The encounter occurred in the South China Sea about 50 miles (80km) northwest of Subic Bay, Philippines, the US says. "The Chinese navy ship ASR-510, a Dalang III-class ship, approached within 500 yards of the Bowditch, launched a small boat, and seized the UUV," the Pentagon said in a statement. The Bowditch made radio contact with the Chinese ship to demand its immediate return but were "ignored". "This is not the sort of conduct we expect from professional navies," Capt Davis added.

The seizure will likely add to US concerns about the growing military posture taken by China in the South China Sea. A US think tank reported this week that aerial imagery shows that China has installed weaponry along seven artificial islands they have built at sea, despite US protests. In November 2015, two US B-52 bomber planes flew over the man-made islands, known as the Spratly Islands. Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said the device was a "sovereign immune vessel of the United States" and demanded its immediate return from China.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38347221

Bo-4
12-16-2016, 03:06 PM
Thanks Obama! ...

Errrr -Trump

MMC
12-16-2016, 03:12 PM
Hey, dey stole our dinghy thingy!...
:angry:
China 'seizes US vessel' in S China Sea
Fri, 16 Dec 2016 - The US demands that China returns a US underwater research vessel taken in the South China Sea, say US officials.


:wink:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/75094-Chinese-Warship-Steals-US-Submersible-Drone?p=1847955#post1847955

exotix
12-16-2016, 03:14 PM
Obamas' Fault ... (even after Jan. 20th) ... http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1478880454/_0_thumbsup_f7svhq.gif

valley ranch
12-16-2016, 03:22 PM
Una fea serpiente se dirigió a la bruja

Maybe China did it, the whole world is having a good laugh about each latest story. Batman done it~

MisterVeritis
12-16-2016, 03:29 PM
Thanks Obama! ...
Errrr -Trump
Two Chinas; one Israel.

stjames1_53
12-16-2016, 03:36 PM
Thanks Obama! ...

Errrr -Trump
buggar off...Trump isn't pres yet.....noodge

stjames1_53
12-16-2016, 03:37 PM
Obamas' Fault ... (even after Jan. 20th) ... http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1478880454/_0_thumbsup_f7svhq.gif

why not. You, personally, actually blamed Bush for 8 years....

Tahuyaman
12-16-2016, 03:49 PM
Obamas' Fault ... (even after Jan. 20th) ... http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1478880454/_0_thumbsup_f7svhq.gif. No. Next month you can stop blaming Bush.

donttread
12-16-2016, 03:50 PM
:shocked: WTF.....just came and gangstered our property, and we don't do anything. The Peep hasn't even responded. What say ye?




A U.S. vessel had its underwater drone stolen by a Chinese warship "literally right in front of the eyes of the American crew" on Thursday, a Department of Defense official told CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-underwater-drone-stolen/index.html) Friday.


The USNS Bowditch was sailing near the South China Sea when it stopped in the water to pick up two underwater drones. Suddenly, a Chinese war ship that had been shadowing the Bowditch put a small boat into the water. The small boat then came up alongside the U.S. ship and took one of the drones.


The U.S. vessel tried to plead with the Chinese ships but received no response, the official said.....snip~


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/12/16/chinese-warship-steals-us-underwater-drone-n2260571


Yeah, I certain that's the whole , complete, story and those drones weren't be useed to spy of the Chinesse

MisterVeritis
12-16-2016, 03:52 PM
This is an interesting provocation if true. Clearly, the Chi-coms are pushing the envelope.
In related conversations concerning the China Seas, I commented the Chinese believe they have adequately solved the area denial problem.

stjames1_53
12-16-2016, 04:02 PM
. No. Next month you can stop blaming Bush.

and we can legitimately blame Obama, the community organizer

Newpublius
12-16-2016, 04:21 PM
:shocked: WTF.....just came and gangstered our property, and we don't do anything. The Peep hasn't even responded. What say ye?




A U.S. vessel had its underwater drone stolen by a Chinese warship "literally right in front of the eyes of the American crew" on Thursday, a Department of Defense official told CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/chinese-warship-underwater-drone-stolen/index.html) Friday.


The USNS Bowditch was sailing near the South China Sea when it stopped in the water to pick up two underwater drones. Suddenly, a Chinese war ship that had been shadowing the Bowditch put a small boat into the water. The small boat then came up alongside the U.S. ship and took one of the drones.


The U.S. vessel tried to plead with the Chinese ships but received no response, the official said.....snip~


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/12/16/chinese-warship-steals-us-underwater-drone-n2260571

I say maybe we should just stay out of the South China Sea.

If there's one thing I am sure of is that it doesn't belong to America.

MisterVeritis
12-16-2016, 05:22 PM
I say maybe we should just stay out of the South China Sea.
If there's one thing I am sure of is that it doesn't belong to America.
Who do you believe the China seas belong to?

Tahuyaman
12-16-2016, 06:15 PM
and we can legitimately blame Obama, the community organizer Trump is going to be responsible to take ownership of every Obama failure of the last eight years. Everything g from piling up unimaginable debt and reviving a sputtering economy, to repairing our reputation with our allies.

The left will will not tolerate Obama's record of domestic failure and foreign policy incompetence to be brought up in the future.

Peter1469
12-16-2016, 06:57 PM
The USNS Bowditch is a survey ship. They couldn't stop the Chinese if they wanted to.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/USNS_Bowditch.jpg

Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Bowditch_%28T-AGS-62%29)

Don
12-16-2016, 07:27 PM
Maybe we should let them capture another one but set it up like an IED.

Peter1469
12-16-2016, 07:35 PM
Maybe we should let them capture another one but set it up like an IED.


I agree.

We did that in Iraq with mortar rounds. Lots of al Qaeda blew themselves up with our presents.

Newpublius
12-16-2016, 07:43 PM
Who do you believe the China seas belong to?

Questions that aren't my concern.


Look, the issue is oil and here's the thing. I don't care who gets it because its not me who 'gets it' -- it doesn't matter to me who drills it. Oil is a global commodity, whoever drills it will either sell it or use it. If China drills it and uses it, that's oil that China isn't buying on the international markets. See, if China uses 100% of it, I still pay less for international oil because China will be demanding LESS international oil, relatively speaking. And the same is true for the Phillipines, or Japan.....

China is our third largest trading partner if we count the EU in total as a single trading partner.

Make a deal, let them have it, I don't care.

This is a major reason our country is going bankrupt. We just cannot help but to meddle and we have a $600bn military to meddle in things with. Its bankrupting the country. Enough, I mean, seriously, how DO the Swiss go to bed at night? Think about what I'm saying there.

MisterVeritis
12-16-2016, 07:47 PM
Who do you believe the China seas belong to?

Questions that aren't my concern.
They belong to no one. They are free for all to use. That ability to use the ocean freely must be backed by force or we will lose it.

Everything else you wrote is for a different discussion.

Newpublius
12-16-2016, 08:02 PM
Who do you believe the China seas belong to?

They belong to no one. They are free for all to use. That ability to use the ocean freely must be backed by force or we will lose it.

Everything else you wrote is for a different discussion.

And the Chinese have no interest in stopping transit through it. They do want to drill the oil there. They're building islands, they're laying a long term claim that 50 years from now will be a fait accompli

This is part of an overall naval presence in the region to show the Chinese that we're there, that we theoretically would have to be reckoned with as this low boil conflict plays out.

We're bumping shoulders in the hallway like at school.

These assholes will spend money on ANYTHING.

Adelaide
12-16-2016, 08:08 PM
Duplicate threads merged.

MisterVeritis
12-16-2016, 08:11 PM
And the Chinese have no interest in stopping transit through it.
How high up in the Chinese government hierarchy are you?


They do want to drill the oil there. They're building islands, they're laying a long term claim that 50 years from now will be a fait accompli
The Chinese have been working on this problem since the late 1970s or 1980s. They will seize control if no one prevents it.

This is part of an overall naval presence in the region to show the Chinese that we're there, that we theoretically would have to be reckoned with as this low boil conflict plays out.
We're bumping shoulders in the hallway like at school.
These assholes will spend money on ANYTHING.
The stakes are higher.

Newpublius
12-16-2016, 08:17 PM
How high up in the Chinese government hierarchy are you?

Well, pretty sure our third largest trading partner wants to continue trading with us.


The Chinese have been working on this problem since the late 1970s or 1980s. They will seize control of no one prevents it.

Good for them. I don't care.


The stakes are higher.

Only because, for some inane reason, we continue to maintain our asinine geopolitical stance in a way that is adverse to China which harkens to the Cold War.

Just stop.

MisterVeritis
12-16-2016, 08:18 PM
Well, pretty sure our third largest trading partner wants to continue trading with us.
You don't know anything.

Newpublius
12-16-2016, 08:20 PM
You don't know anything.
Yes, I do, the Chinese say, "We want the South China Sea for the oil and we want to continue trading with the US"

Peter1469
12-16-2016, 08:37 PM
International law is clear on what how far national sovereignty extends off shore, as well as the exclusive economic zone, and then international waters. If the US just gives China the South China Sea, then it puts international law in doubt and all maritime powers will start claiming maritime territory leading to military conflicts.


Questions that aren't my concern.


Look, the issue is oil and here's the thing. I don't care who gets it because its not me who 'gets it' -- it doesn't matter to me who drills it. Oil is a global commodity, whoever drills it will either sell it or use it. If China drills it and uses it, that's oil that China isn't buying on the international markets. See, if China uses 100% of it, I still pay less for international oil because China will be demanding LESS international oil, relatively speaking. And the same is true for the Phillipines, or Japan.....

China is our third largest trading partner if we count the EU in total as a single trading partner.

Make a deal, let them have it, I don't care.

This is a major reason our country is going bankrupt. We just cannot help but to meddle and we have a $600bn military to meddle in things with. Its bankrupting the country. Enough, I mean, seriously, how DO the Swiss go to bed at night? Think about what I'm saying there.

Peter1469
12-16-2016, 08:45 PM
Under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states may claim an “Exclusive Economic Zone” of up to 200 nautical miles. States have the sole rights to natural resource extraction within their own EEZs, but must also allow innocent passage through these zones according to UNCLOS. Because of their proximity, some states in maritime Asia claim EEZs that are overlapping.
The South China Sea is the site of several ongoing EEZ disputes between neighbors. Further north, Japan, China and South Korea also have EEZ boundary disputes. In areas shaded in yellow, however, states have agreed to jointly fish or develop an area despite an ongoing EEZ dispute.

Link (http://www.businessinsider.com/tensions-in-the-south-china-sea-explained-in-18-maps-2015-1/#10-exclusive-economic-zones-10)

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/546b6842eab8eaa278db582b-1200/10-exclusive-economic-zones.jpg

MisterVeritis
12-16-2016, 11:05 PM
Yes, I do, the Chinese say, "We want the South China Sea for the oil and we want to continue trading with the US"
No. You don't. You have an illusion of knowing.

Newpublius
12-16-2016, 11:16 PM
No. You don't. You have an illusion of knowing.

No, really, the Chinese say, 'We want to trade with you" and then they do things to back that up, like join the WTO and then to sibsequently engage in fuether negotiations to enter a bilateral trade relationship over and above the multilateral deal that the WTO is and then shocker we actually have engaged in TRILLIONS. Not the least of which if they wanted to stop trading withbus, they coukd declare an embargo.

MisterVeritis
12-16-2016, 11:18 PM
No, really, the Chinese say, 'We want to trade with you" and then they do things to back that up, like join the WTO and then to sibsequently engage in fuether negotiations to enter a bilateral trade relationship over and above the multilateral deal that the WTO is and then shocker we actually have engaged in TRILLIONS. Not the least of which if they wanted to stop trading withbus, they coukd declare an embargo.
Let's test how much you know.

It is December 2016. How will the Chinese respond to Trump's Two China's policy in May of 2018?

Newpublius
12-16-2016, 11:34 PM
Let's test how much you know.

It is December 2016. How will the Chinese respond to Trump's Two China's policy in May of 2018?

The need for intervention runs deep.

Don
12-17-2016, 12:07 AM
The Chinese have been doing this kind of thing for years. In 2001 they were unsafely tailing one of our planes and bumped into it causing the plane to make an emergency landing on a Chinese island. We had to play their stupid games to get the crew of 24 back. In 2014 they again made dangerous harassing maneuvers around another one of our planes.

Maybe we should put a placard on our planes and ships and gear in that area that says "Harassing, endangering or capturing any American ships or planes or equipment carries a $100 billion fine. After all they do own $1.2 trillion of our debt. We could just deduct it from that.

Common Sense
12-17-2016, 12:11 AM
It's kind of hard to criticize China for wanting to expand into the south China sea, considering the US military and naval presence in the Pacific.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 12:29 AM
It's kind of hard to criticize China for wanting to expand into the south China sea, considering the US military and naval presence in the Pacific.
Not the same thing. They are claiming it as territorial waters.

Common Sense
12-17-2016, 12:42 AM
Not the same thing. They are claiming it as territorial waters.

But is it really much different than the US controlling the waters around Guam, the Mariana Islands, Marshal Islands etc..?

In definition only I would say.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 12:50 AM
But is it really much different than the US controlling the waters around Guam, the Mariana Islands, Marshal Islands etc..?

In definition only I would say.The US keeps sea lanes open for free navigation. The Chinese want the South China Sea as their own lake for the oil and for the ability to control the trade routes.

Ransom
12-17-2016, 06:25 AM
But is it really much different than the US controlling the waters around Guam, the Mariana Islands, Marshal Islands etc..?

In definition only I would say.

Those islands in our absence would be Japanese or Chinese puppet states perhaps?

Ransom
12-17-2016, 06:27 AM
The US keeps sea lanes open for free navigation. The Chinese want the South China Sea as their own lake for the oil and for the ability to control the trade routes.

And the wild card being North Korea right smack dab in the middle. No doubt this President has left Trump with quite the pickle.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 06:46 AM
And the wild card being North Korea right smack dab in the middle. No doubt this President has left Trump with quite the pickle.

The South China Sea will certainly be a problem for Trump, although I don't think North Korea will be an issue so far as that goes.

North Korean is a separate problem.

Ransom
12-17-2016, 07:47 AM
The South China Sea will certainly be a problem for Trump, although I don't think North Korea will be an issue so far as that goes.

North Korean is a separate problem.
No no, Pete. North Korea the reason we're in South Korea, the defense of the Korean Peninsula is the primary military mission for our 7th Fleet, it is what makes the South China Sea so critical for us. We will not go to war or even militarily oppose for example, a Chinese move against Taiwan. But any threat against our forces in SK is a completely different story. Not wanting an argument here, we're on the same page.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 07:51 AM
No no, Pete. North Korea the reason we're in South Korea, the defense of the Korean Peninsula is the primary military mission for our 7th Fleet, it is what makes the South China Sea so critical for us. We will not go to war or even militarily oppose for example, a Chinese move against Taiwan. But any threat against our forces in SK is a completely different story. Not wanting an argument here, we're on the same page.Korea and the South China Sea are separate issues.

Had North Korea been absorbed by the South after their war, what we see today in the South China Sea would be identical to today's reality.

Newpublius
12-17-2016, 07:55 AM
It's kind of hard to criticize China for wanting to expand into the south China sea, considering the US military and naval presence in the Pacific.

Apparently from what I am reading, their claim isn't very strong. So the Chinese are going out there and building up rock outcroppings into islands. The expansion of the US into islands was indeed related to having bases. This really isn't that, they want whatever islands they can claim to establish the exclusive economic zone so they can drill for oil. The US response is motivated partially by the concept of freedom of navigation. Indeed, within a certain range of the islands, the Chinese theoretically would be able to block commercial traffic, but not within the EEC. Even of we stipulated that all Chinese claims were valid, and they're not, the impact to commercial traffic in the region isn't very great, even IF the Chinese were even interested in doing that, and they just aren't.

Newpublius
12-17-2016, 07:57 AM
The US keeps sea lanes open for free navigation. The Chinese want the South China Sea as their own lake for the oil and for the ability to control the trade routes.

See, this is where the US government are a bunch of lying sacks of shit. They say that, but it's about the oil. The US doesn't want China to get the oil.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 08:01 AM
Man made islands do not count as territory for purposes of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Apparently from what I am reading, their claim isn't very strong. So the Chinese are going out there and building up rock outcroppings into islands. The expansion of the US into islands was indeed related to having bases. This really isn't that, they want whatever islands they can claim to establish the exclusive economic zone so they can drill for oil. The US response is motivated partially by the concept of freedom of navigation. Indeed, within a certain range of the islands, the Chinese theoretically would be able to block commercial traffic, but not within the EEC. Even of we stipulated that all Chinese claims were valid, and they're not, the impact to commercial traffic in the region isn't very great, even IF the Chinese were even interested in doing that, and they just aren't.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 08:03 AM
See, this is where the US government are a bunch of lying sacks of shit. They say that, but it's about the oil. The US doesn't want China to get the oil.

Disagree. International law is clear on the meaning of terms such as territorial waters, exclusive economic zone, etc.

China is ignoring that and attempting to claim international waters as their territory.

Ransom
12-17-2016, 08:08 AM
See, this is where the US government are a bunch of lying sacks of $#@!. They say that, but it's about the oil. The US doesn't want China to get the oil.
Does the fact that we have enormous military occupation forces in South Korea and Japan and the Pacific Rim factor in here. The oil of course a factor, our primary trading partners South Korea and Japan as interested in that oil as is China. But China builds an island, arms it, calls it theirs and demands nations abide.....in another issue yes. Not denying oil a major factor, but our maritime trade and military assets does come into play. Yes?

Common
12-17-2016, 08:14 AM
We have no one to blame but our Corporations who ran to china gave them BILLIONS to build their military all for dirt cheap labor and out of pure greed.

Our corporations created todays china no one else, without them the chinese govt would still be starving

DGUtley
12-17-2016, 08:14 AM
From what I've read, the Chi-coms are clearly wrong, international - law wise. They are pushing the envelope. The ole 'whatchagonnadoboutit' thingy.

Newpublius
12-17-2016, 08:30 AM
Does the fact that we have enormous military occupation forces in South Korea and Japan and the Pacific Rim factor in here. The oil of course a factor, our primary trading partners South Korea and Japan as interested in that oil as is China. But China builds an island, arms it, calls it theirs and demands nations abide.....in another issue yes. Not denying oil a major factor, but our maritime trade and military assets does come into play. Yes?

They are putting military assets on the islands but merely to plant the flag. The islands they are claiming don't give them enough area to block out the South China Sea.

Docthehun
12-17-2016, 08:31 AM
The other week I mentioned I thought it was a mistake for the President-elect to have a conversation with the elected head of China's little sister. Stirring the international pot before taking office makes it your problem, not the President. This President has done a fairly decent job keeping our body bag count to a minimum during his tenure.

But the President-elect is a businessman and that's how he'll conduct policy, both here and abroad. I'm sure he's convinced we have them by the economic nuts and he's probably right. The US market represents almost 40% of Chinese GDP. Shutting off just a quarter of their exports here would create a financial crisis for them.


I huge amount of shipping, yearly in trillions, passes through the South China Sea. That body of water is strategic to the Chinese economy even more so than a military value. They also realize that the US Navy is intent on keeping international waters open, come hell or high water and the President-elect is likely to step down even harder. No one buys the "research" ship and drone explanation. They were probably tracking Chinese subs. My advice is don't make an international event of the incident. This sort of thing happens all the time. The Chinese are edgy and they're not alone. It seems like half the world has their hand on their gun anyway, so let's not be provoking guys to start putting a finger on the trigger.

"Walk softly Mr. President-elect."

Docthehun
12-17-2016, 08:33 AM
We have no one to blame but our Corporations who ran to china gave them BILLIONS to build their military all for dirt cheap labor and out of pure greed.

Our corporations created todays china no one else, without them the chinese govt would still be starving

Spot on! Sue the owners!

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 08:34 AM
They are putting military assets on the islands but merely to plant the flag. The islands they are claiming don't give them enough area to block out the South China Sea.

They are man-made islands and have no legal significance so for as territorial claims go.

Newpublius
12-17-2016, 08:36 AM
Disagree. International law is clear on the meaning of terms such as territorial waters, exclusive economic zone, etc.

China is ignoring that and attempting to claim international waters as their territory.

No, that's imprecise, they ARE making claims which, if we assume their validity, will permit China to claim waters around it as their territorial water. That is 12 miles around the island where China could theoretically say, "This is China, get out"

Even if we conceded these claims these 12 mile circles where we wouldn't be able to go, have no impact on our ability to trade generally.

That's NOT what the Chinese are after they want the 200 mile EEC where they have a right to drill for oil but NOT the right to stop transit through.

DGUtley
12-17-2016, 08:43 AM
The other week I mentioned I thought it was a mistake for the President-elect to have a conversation with the elected head of China's little sister. Stirring the international pot before taking office makes it your problem, not the President. This President has done a fairly decent job keeping our body bag count to a minimum during his tenure. But the President-elect is a businessman and that's how he'll conduct policy, both here and abroad. I'm sure he's convinced we have them by the economic nuts and he's probably right. The US market represents almost 40% of Chinese GDP. Shutting off just a quarter of their exports here would create a financial crisis for them. I huge amount of shipping, yearly in trillions, passes through the South China Sea. That body of water is strategic to the Chinese economy even more so than a military value. They also realize that the US Navy is intent on keeping international waters open, come hell or high water and the President-elect is likely to step down even harder. No one buys the "research" ship and drone explanation. They were probably tracking Chinese subs. My advice is don't make an international event of the incident. This sort of thing happens all the time. The Chinese are edgy and they're not alone. It seems like half the world has their hand on their gun anyway, so let's not be provoking guys to start putting a finger on the trigger. "Walk softly Mr. President-elect."

I agree on the walk softly notion. Let's not let this thing blow up. This happens all the time and we rarely hear about it.

I read a book once written by a Romanian General that had defected from Romania before the fall of communism. He detailed several episodes similar to this -- the most striking of which was one during which our (the west) tanks were conducting an exercise. They (the east) hit our tank and knocked it into a building, covered the building, stole the tank and sent it to Russia. Didn't hear about that in the paper....

Newpublius
12-17-2016, 08:50 AM
Man made islands do not count as territory for purposes of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
I have read that their claims aren't strong. That's incidental to the point. My point is that even if we conceded the claim, the result is not going to be a series of 12 mile radius black holes blocking the South China Sea to international access. There will be no material impact to being able to navigate for purposes of innocent passage through the area, generally.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 08:52 AM
Right. But international law specifically says man-made islands don't count.
No, that's imprecise, they ARE making claims which, if we assume their validity, will permit China to claim waters around it as their territorial water. That is 12 miles around the island where China could theoretically say, "This is China, get out"

Even if we conceded these claims these 12 mile circles where we wouldn't be able to go, have no impact on our ability to trade generally.

That's NOT what the Chinese are after they want the 200 mile EEC where they have a right to drill for oil but NOT the right to stop transit through.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 08:54 AM
The international tribunal that covers the Law of the Sea Treaty has already ruled against China.

If any nation can create man made islands in order to get a 200 mile exclusive economic zone, will that make war more or less likely?


I have read that their claims aren't strong. That's incidental to the point. My point is that even if we conceded the claim, the result is not going to be a series of 12 mile radius black holes blocking the South China Sea to international access. There will be no material impact to being able to navigate for purposes of innocent passage through the area, generally.

Common Sense
12-17-2016, 08:54 AM
Apparently from what I am reading, their claim isn't very strong. So the Chinese are going out there and building up rock outcroppings into islands. The expansion of the US into islands was indeed related to having bases. This really isn't that, they want whatever islands they can claim to establish the exclusive economic zone so they can drill for oil. The US response is motivated partially by the concept of freedom of navigation. Indeed, within a certain range of the islands, the Chinese theoretically would be able to block commercial traffic, but not within the EEC. Even of we stipulated that all Chinese claims were valid, and they're not, the impact to commercial traffic in the region isn't very great, even IF the Chinese were even interested in doing that, and they just aren't.
That may well be true, however I don't think US expansion into the Pacific after WW1 was an altruistic effort to keep sea lanes free. It was economically and militarily beneficial. Just as Chinese expansion is to them.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 08:56 AM
That may well be true, however I don't think US expansion into the Pacific after WW1 was an altruistic effort to keep sea lanes free. It was economically and militarily beneficial. Just as Chinese expansion is to them.

The US Navy has kept the sea lanes open and free. Just think if each maritime power could set up "tolling" stations for all ships from other nations to pass.

How much would it cost to buy stuff in that case?

DGUtley
12-17-2016, 08:57 AM
I have read that their claims aren't strong. That's incidental to the point. My point is that even if we conceded the claim, the result is not going to be a series of 12 mile radius black holes blocking the South China Sea to international access. There will be no material impact to being able to navigate for purposes of innocent passage through the area, generally.

it's that slippery slope argument, though. You can't go there.

Docthehun
12-17-2016, 09:09 AM
I agree on the walk softly notion. Let's not let this thing blow up. This happens all the time and we rarely hear about it.

I read a book once written by a Romanian General that had defected from Romania before the fall of communism. He detailed several episodes similar to this -- the most striking of which was one during which our (the west) tanks were conducting an exercise. They (the east) hit our tank and knocked it into a building, covered the building, stole the tank and sent it to Russia. Didn't hear about that in the paper....

Diplomacy under the current administration.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-smooth-resolution-expected-us-navy-drone-issue-085342299.html

resister
12-17-2016, 09:15 AM
Obama nuetered our military and made us a laughing stock.They would not of tried this kinda shit when Bush was in office

Newpublius
12-17-2016, 09:21 AM
it's that slippery slope argument, though. You can't go there.

If the Chinese said, "We'll take these islands and the 12 mile doughnut hole where you can't go, but you get the EEZ" -- we'd take that deal because its about the EEZ and not the 12 mile doughnut hole.

Likewise, if we said, "China, buddy ole pal, we will give youbthe EEZ but we want our ships tonhave the right of innocent passage innthese 12 mile zones." -- the Chinese would say, "Of course we are very important bilateral trading partners and we have no interest in inpeding or stopping Sino-American commerce"

They can't make islands everywhere, its not practical.

The reason we SAY its about freedom of navigation is because the, US, as a nation, has no other interest that would justidy meddling.

Its a massive sea and in theory the Chinese will be able to stop you from navigating in a very, very, very small, avoidable in places we don't go often to begin with. Its not a 'slippery slope' because they can't just string up enough islands to block the South China Sea.

Its about the oil.

DGUtley
12-17-2016, 09:27 AM
Obama nuetered our military and made us a laughing stock.They would not of tried this kinda $#@! when Bush was in office

I don't think our military is a laughingstock. I think that they question the will of this administration to use overt force to exert its desires. I think that he's handled NK very well. Nobody's perfect and I'm very critical of The Obama on many things (and likewise try to give him credit when due), but I'm waiting to see on this one.

Bo-4
12-17-2016, 09:31 AM
buggar off...Trump isn't pres yet.....noodge

China ALWAYS tests new presidents - but never over a month ahead of an inauguration.

If you believe this wasn't related to his tough talk and his Bob Dole orchestrated call with Taiwan ..

then you're the noodge .. :)

DGUtley
12-17-2016, 09:33 AM
China ALWAYS tests new presidents - but never over a month ahead of an inauguration. If you believe this wasn't related to his tough talk and his Poppy Bush orchestrated call with Taiwan .. then you're the noodge .. :)

Bo, Bush orchestrated that call? Hadn't heard that til today. Link please?

Newpublius
12-17-2016, 09:40 AM
That may well be true, however I don't think US expansion into the Pacific after WW1 was an altruistic effort to keep sea lanes free. It was economically and militarily beneficial. Just as Chinese expansion is to them.

Well its related to the Spanish American War and subsequently acquiring the Phillipines. Let's say the Japanese didn't like that but, since the Phillipikes weren't their islands, they said, "you can't claim Midway, Guam, etc because it will impact our ability to freely navigate."

In a limited sense, the Japanese would be correct, they wouldn't be able to go within 12 miles, but you'd still look at them and say, "Hey, you still have the rest of the Pacific Ocean at your disposal."

My point is that our objection to China's claims in the sense of how it impacts the US, is farcical.

Google up the South China Sea dispute map on wiki. Does China impede commercial traffic through the EEZ that IS clearly China's acknowledged by all? No, they don't. Of course you can see how the claims overlap, but those claims aren't to stop shipping, they are EEZ zones.

Now look at the Spratly Islands, now, let's assume the qorst case scenario and say China takes them, everybody acknowledges it.....and China asserts that thise waters become the 'internal' waters, which, by the way they aren't going to do......even THEN.....its impact to commercial traffic which now needs to go around is extremely limited to the US (the Phillipines would have a better gripe there)

Its about the EEZ and the oil.

Bo-4
12-17-2016, 09:49 AM
Bo, Bush orchestrated that call? Hadn't heard that til today. Link please?

Meant to say DOLE - Bob Dole.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/bob-dole-donald-trump-taiwan-lobbying/

Thanks - i'll fix it

MisterVeritis
12-17-2016, 11:19 AM
The need for intervention runs deep.
You maintain your illusion of knowing. You know nothing.

China's militarization and dominance over the China Seas give them a military and political advantage.

Newpublius
12-17-2016, 11:27 AM
You maintain your illusion of knowing. You know nothing.

China's militarization and dominance over the China Seas give them a military and political advantage.

What's funny here is that the commentators on this issue ubderstand that the real issue here is oil. Everybody knows that the US pretext for meddling is 'freedom of navigation' and likewise everybody knows China has no interest in stoppijg commerce generally, much less commerce with the US. In fact it has not done so in EEZ's in the region that are, in fact, ubdisputed, ie they actually DO belong to China.

This is about the oil.

Either way its NOT ours.

MisterVeritis
12-17-2016, 11:30 AM
What's funny here is that the commentators on this issue ubderstand that the real issue here is oil. Everybody knows that the US pretext for meddling is 'freedom of navigation' and likewise everybody knows China has no interest in stoppijg commerce generally, much less commerce with the US. In fact it has not done so in EEZ's in the region that are, in fact, ubdisputed, ie they actually DO belong to China.
This is about the oil.
Either way its NOT ours.
I understand you comfort yourself with your beliefs.

Bethere
12-17-2016, 11:31 AM
Korea and the South China Sea are separate issues.

Had North Korea been absorbed by the South after their war, what we see today in the South China Sea would be identical to today's reality.

After the war?

I thought you understood the situation!

The war is not over.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/24/armstrong.north.korea/

Ransom
12-17-2016, 11:56 AM
The other week I mentioned I thought it was a mistake for the President-elect to have a conversation with the elected head of China's little sister. Stirring the international pot before taking office makes it your problem, not the President. This President has done a fairly decent job keeping our body bag count to a minimum during his tenure.

China has been creating islands for years, we've been stirring the pot! We've been sailing right through waters they claim are theirs, we've ignored repeated warnings. The increase in the chances of a military confrontation have been growing quite rapidly long before Donald Trump won his Primary.

But the President-elect is a businessman and that's how he'll conduct policy, both here and abroad. I'm sure he's convinced we have them by the economic nuts and he's probably right. The US market represents almost 40% of Chinese GDP. Shutting off just a quarter of their exports here would create a financial crisis for them.


I huge amount of shipping, yearly in trillions, passes through the South China Sea. That body of water is strategic to the Chinese economy even more so than a military value. They also realize that the US Navy is intent on keeping international waters open, come hell or high water and the President-elect is likely to step down even harder. No one buys the "research" ship and drone explanation. They were probably tracking Chinese subs. My advice is don't make an international event of the incident. This sort of thing happens all the time. The Chinese are edgy and they're not alone. It seems like half the world has their hand on their gun anyway, so let's not be provoking guys to start putting a finger on the trigger.

"Walk softly Mr. President-elect."

Let the Chinese be edgy. It is China who has substantially modernized its naval capabilities....and for the exact purpose of enforcing what it feels is.....I believe Foreign Affairs used "sovereignty and jurisdiction claims"....."by force if necessary." China is developing, Docthehun, capabilities that would put U.S. forces in the region at risk. It's not walking softly....it's swinging a big stick around and daring anyone to approach. Almost making it clear they can potentially deny access to the U.S. Navy in SCS not to mention the western Pacific.

Perhaps it's time the Chinese version of Docthehun in China submits to their leaders to "walk softly, Mr. Premier, these Americans are a little edgy."

Ransom
12-17-2016, 12:02 PM
They are putting military assets on the islands but merely to plant the flag. The islands they are claiming don't give them enough area to block out the South China Sea.

That....and their recent buildup of naval capabilities. And it's structuring itself to dominate a region where China itself, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines all have competing "territorial and jurisdictional claims." In regions of the SCS that possibly and most probably have extensive reserves of oil and natural gas. They seem to be preparing for confrontation, New.....what is your assessment?

Ransom
12-17-2016, 12:08 PM
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

Great read although a snoozer to follow along but do read the summary at the start and that should give the reader the points made within. Their modernization discussed on page 5, Peter1469 you would enjoy this. My recent Foreign Affairs subscript that I love handling rather than reading over the web where I got this link.

MMC
12-17-2016, 12:24 PM
Update: Trump Tweets and China hurries up and responds while Bending over. http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif



China Will Transfer Seized U.S. Drone in ‘Appropriate’ Way.....


China’s ministry of defense promised to return a U.S. Navy underwater drone in an “appropriate” manner after it scooped up the submersible in the South China Sea late this week and triggered a diplomatic row. It also criticized the U.S. for hyping the incident.


The ministry made the pledge on its Weibo social media account late Saturday night. It followed a U.S. demand for the vessel and assurances from Beijing that the two governments were working to resolve the spat, which were punctuated by a tweet from President-elect Donald Trump denouncing the seizure as “unprecedented.”


The drone incident was disclosed in a Pentagon announcement on Friday. China’s ministry said the U.S. “unilaterally hyped the case in public,” which it said wasn’t helpful in solving the problem smoothly. The U.S. has “frequently” sent its vessels and aircrafts into the region, and China urges such activities to stop, the ministry said in its Weibo message.


Trump slammed the Chinese navy’s capture of the unmanned underwater vehicle in a message to his 17.4 million Twitter followers.


“China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters -- rips it out of water and takes it to China in unprecedented act,” Trump wrote Saturday in a tweet sent hours after the Chinese government said it had been in touch with the U.S. military about the incident......snip~

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-s-navy-vessel (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-16/pentagon-demands-china-return-an-intercepted-u-s-navy-vessel)

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 02:59 PM
I read an article that was based off this when it came out. I likely posted about it somewhere. There is no question that China is a future competitor at sea. But that day is not today. The Chinese don't think like we do- they think long term. So I don't think the Chinese are going to start a naval battle anytime soon. That would only make them start over in building a blue water navy.


Everyone should check out the CRS reports. That is our Congress providing its oversight role of government.


Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following:

whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough and capable enough
to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime A2/AD forces while also
adequately performing other missions around th
e world;

whether the Navy’s plans for developing and procuring long
-
range carrier
-
based
aircraft and long
-
range ship
-
and aircraft
-
launched weapons are appropriate;

whether the Navy can effectively counter Chinese ASBMs and submarines; and

whether the Na
vy, in response to China’s maritime A2/AD capabilities, should
shift over time to a more distributed fleet architecture.









https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

Great read although a snoozer to follow along but do read the summary at the start and that should give the reader the points made within. Their modernization discussed on page 5, @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) you would enjoy this. My recent Foreign Affairs subscript that I love handling rather than reading over the web where I got this link.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 03:03 PM
I understand that no peace treaty was signed. I served in Korea twice. And I did two tours on the DMZ when the US still had a sector.

You just Googled it and made a useless post.


After the war?

I thought you understood the situation!

The war is not over.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/24/armstrong.north.korea/

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 03:06 PM
Man-made islands do not confer any legal rights under international law.
China has been creating islands for years, we've been stirring the pot! We've been sailing right through waters they claim are theirs, we've ignored repeated warnings. The increase in the chances of a military confrontation have been growing quite rapidly long before Donald Trump won his Primary.


Let the Chinese be edgy. It is China who has substantially modernized its naval capabilities....and for the exact purpose of enforcing what it feels is.....I believe Foreign Affairs used "sovereignty and jurisdiction claims"....."by force if necessary." China is developing, Docthehun, capabilities that would put U.S. forces in the region at risk. It's not walking softly....it's swinging a big stick around and daring anyone to approach. Almost making it clear they can potentially deny access to the U.S. Navy in SCS not to mention the western Pacific.

Perhaps it's time the Chinese version of Docthehun in China submits to their leaders to "walk softly, Mr. Premier, these Americans are a little edgy."

Bethere
12-17-2016, 03:10 PM
I understand that no peace treaty was signed. I served in Korea twice. And I did two tours on the DMZ when the US still had a sector.

You just Googled it and made a useless post.

You don't know what you are talking about, obviously, or I wouldn't have had to explain it to you.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 03:15 PM
You don't know what you are talking about, obviously, or I wouldn't have had to explain it to you.

troll alert

Anyway the DMZ mission was very rewarding.

Ethereal
12-17-2016, 03:31 PM
These things happen, especially when your military is spread out across the globe in search of windmills to slay.

As far as a response goes, what can you do?

Ethereal
12-17-2016, 03:33 PM
They should have sunk the Chinese boat...

You would imperil a trade relationship worth trillions of dollars in order to stop the Chinese from taking a drone?

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 03:35 PM
These things happen, especially when your military is spread out across the globe in search of windmills to slay.

As far as a response goes, what can you do?

Have a SEAL team put limpet mines on the hull of the Chinese vessel that has our drone. Blow it up and offer to help in the search and rescue. In back channels let the Chinese know not to touch our toys.

Ethereal
12-17-2016, 03:41 PM
In this particular instance, yes. It would have been a completely appropriate and lawful response to an act of piracy, and yes, it does meet the definition of piracy.

Sinking a Chinese vessel in response to them pirating a drone would be a wildly disproportionate response that could precipitate a wider military conflict.

Ethereal
12-17-2016, 03:42 PM
Have a SEAL team put limpet mines on the hull of the Chinese vessel that has our drone. Blow it up and offer to help in the search and rescue. In back channels let the Chinese know not to touch our toys.
Or just accept the fact that they took our drone and not do something incredibly reckless that could imperil trillions of dollars worth of trade and loans?

hanger4
12-17-2016, 03:42 PM
The drone is being returned

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-17/china-responds-will-return-stolen-drone-regrets-us-hype

Ethereal
12-17-2016, 03:46 PM
The drone is being returned

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-17/china-responds-will-return-stolen-drone-regrets-us-hype

Wow.

And without anyone needing to be blown up.

Americans really need to calm down and stop with cowboy diplomacy. It's hurting our country immensely.

Peter1469
12-17-2016, 03:47 PM
Or just accept the fact that they took our drone and not do something incredibly reckless that could imperil trillions of dollars worth of trade and loans?

Just a thought.

I was thinking we could do it with plausible deniability.

In the future we need self destruction systems on our drones.

Ethereal
12-17-2016, 03:53 PM
Just a thought.

I was thinking we could do it with plausible deniability.

In the future we need self destruction systems on our drones.
I doubt the Chinese would see our deniability as plausible.

A self-destruct could be useful, but I also think we just need to accept the fact that these kinds of things will happen from time to time and that we shouldn't overreact when they do. Call it the cost of empire.

Ransom
12-17-2016, 04:16 PM
Have a SEAL team put limpet mines on the hull of the Chinese vessel that has our drone. Blow it up and offer to help in the search and rescue. In back channels let the Chinese know not to touch our toys.
You realist Cowboys, I swear.:rolleyes:

MMC
12-17-2016, 04:28 PM
The drone is being returned

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-17/china-responds-will-return-stolen-drone-regrets-us-hype

Yeah Trump tweeted, and the Chinese then found a way to respond quick like.

Cletus
12-17-2016, 06:58 PM
Sinking a Chinese vessel in response to them pirating a drone would be a wildly disproportionate response that could precipitate a wider military conflict.

Sinking a pirate vessel after an act of piracy is not disproportionate.

MisterVeritis
12-17-2016, 07:38 PM
Or just accept the fact that they took our drone and not do something incredibly reckless that could imperil trillions of dollars worth of trade and loans?
NOT doing anything imperils...

Bethere
12-17-2016, 07:45 PM
Just a thought.

I was thinking we could do it with plausible deniability.

In the future we need self destruction systems on our drones.
Lol.

waltky
12-17-2016, 08:23 PM
A likely excuse...
:rollseyes:
China says it seized US Navy drone to ensure safety of ships
Dec 17,`16 -- China said Saturday its military seized a U.S. Navy unmanned underwater glider in the South China Sea to ensure the "safe navigation of passing ships," but would give back the drone after determining it was an American device.


The United States later confirmed it had "secured an understanding" for the return, seeming to settle one of the most serious incidents between the two militaries in years. The Chinese navy on Thursday seized the drone, which the Pentagon said was being operated by civilian contractors to conduct oceanic research. The U.S. lodged a formal diplomatic complaint and demand the drone back. Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun issued a statement late Saturday saying that a Chinese navy lifeboat discovered an unknown device in the South China Sea on Thursday. "In order to prevent this device from posing a danger to the safe navigation of passing ships and personnel, the Chinese lifeboat adopted a professional and responsible attitude in investigating and verifying the device," Yang said.

The statement said that after verifying that the device was an American unmanned submerged device, "China decided to transfer it to the U.S. through appropriate means." The U.S. said that "through direct engagement with Chinese authorities, we have secured an understanding that the Chinese will return" the unmanned underwater vehicle, according to a statement from Peter Cook, spokesman for U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter. The U.S. said China's "unlawful seizure" came in international waters. Yet China pointedly accused the U.S. of long sending ships "in China's presence" to conduct "military surveying." "China is resolutely opposed to this and requests the U.S. stop such activities," it said. "China will continue to maintain vigilance against the relevant U.S. activities and will take necessary measures to deal with them."

Earlier Saturday, China's foreign ministry said the country's military was in contact with its American counterparts on "appropriately handling" the incident, though it offered no details on what discussions were underway. The drone was seized while collecting unclassified scientific data about 92 kilometers (57 miles) northwest of Subic Bay near the Philippines in the South China Sea, which China claims virtually in its entirety, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Friday. "It is ours. It's clearly marked as ours. We would like it back, and we would like this not to happen again," Davis told reporters. He said the drone costs about $150,000 and is largely commercial, off-the-shelf technology.

The USNS Bowditch, which is not a combat ship, was stopped in international waters Thursday afternoon and recovering two of the gliders when the Chinese ship approached, Davis said. The two vessels were within about 450 meters (500 yards) of each other. He said that the USNS Bowditch carries some small arms, but that no shots were fired. According to the Pentagon, as the Chinese ship left with the drone, which is about 3 meters (10 feet) long, its only radio response to the U.S. vessel was, "We are returning to normal operations." President-elect Donald Trump blasted the seizure. Apparently misspelling "unprecedented," he tweeted Saturday: "China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters - rips it out of water and takes it to China in unpresidented act." He later reissued the tweet, correcting the spelling to "unprecedented."

MORE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_US_NAVY_DRONE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-12-17-14-51-39)

See also:

China to return seized US underwater drone, Pentagon says
Sun, 18 Dec 2016 - The US says it has "secured an understanding" that China will return an underwater drone it has seized.


China captured the US vessel in international waters on Thursday. It has not explained why and accused the US of "hyping-up" the incident. US President-elect Donald Trump accused the Chinese of "stealing". "We should tell China that we don't want the drone they stole back - let them keep it!" he tweeted. The incident is among the most serious military confrontations between the two powers for decades. The Pentagon said the drone, known as an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV), was being used to carry out scientific research at the time it was captured and demanded its immediate return. It warned China not to repeat such a move in the future.

But a spokesman said later on Saturday that an agreement had been reached. "Through direct engagement with Chinese authorities, we have secured an understanding that the Chinese will return the UUV to the United States," Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said in a statement. The Chinese defence ministry said the vessel would be returned in an "appropriate manner". It is not clear when this might happen. It criticised the earlier US response, calling it "inappropriate and unhelpful". Mr Trump had already inflamed the Chinese by speaking on the phone earlier this month with the leader of Taiwan, breaking a long-standing US practice on the China-Taiwan dispute. For the earlier tweet, accusing the Chinese of stealing, he drew criticism online for misspelling the word unprecedented - the latest in a series of errors in his Twitter posts. He has now corrected the entry.


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/28C9/production/_93014401_036923598-1.jpg
A undated Navy file photo shows crew members aboard the VOS Raasay recover US and British Royal Navy ocean gliders taking part in the Unmanned Warrior exercise off the northwest coast of Scotland

A Chinese Navy ship seized the unmanned drone 92km (57 miles) north-west of Subic Bay near the Philippines in the South China Sea on Thursday. The craft was retrieved and examined to maintain the safety of passing vessels, China's defence ministry said in a statement. The US said the unmanned drone was being operated by civilian contractors and was about to be retrieved by USNS Bowditch, an oceanographic research ship. It made a formal diplomatic complaint to China over the incident. Senator Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, called the seizure "a remarkably brazen violation of international law", while Senior Republican Senator John McCain said the US should not tolerate "such outrageous conduct".

Observers said the seizure was the most significant military incident between the two countries since a 2001 mid-air collision between a US Navy surveillance aircraft and a Chinese fighter jet that led to the death of a Chinese pilot. It will likely add to US concerns about the growing military build-up by China in the South China Sea. China has claimed territorial rights over parts of the region but its claims are disputed. It is not clear if China claims the territory in which the drone was seized. A US think tank reported this week that aerial imagery shows that China has installed weaponry along seven artificial islands they have built at sea, despite US protests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38352761

donttread
12-18-2016, 07:54 AM
NOT doing anything imperils...

The drones were probably taken for a reason, such as spying on the Russian ship or activities. . You don't honestly think some ship commader just chose to risk an international incident because he wanted some cool drones for his kids do you? C'mon man!

donttread
12-18-2016, 07:55 AM
The drone is being returned

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-17/china-responds-will-return-stolen-drone-regrets-us-hype


Minus the covert pics it took no doubt.

MisterVeritis
12-18-2016, 09:11 AM
The drones were probably taken for a reason, such as spying on the Russian ship or activities. . You don't honestly think some ship commader just chose to risk an international incident because he wanted some cool drones for his kids do you? C'mon man!
Piracy is piracy. Sink the pirate ship. Bill the country for the UUV.

Amadeus
12-18-2016, 12:05 PM
Did anyone mention this tweet yet? I wonder what his strategy is! I'm sure it's something great.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-tweet-china-seize-us-navy-underwater-drone-south-china-sea-one-china-taiwan-a7482416.html

exotix
12-18-2016, 12:20 PM
Did anyone mention this tweet yet? I wonder what his strategy is! I'm sure it's something great.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-tweet-china-seize-us-navy-underwater-drone-south-china-sea-one-china-taiwan-a7482416.htmlTrump to China ~ 'Keep It'


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/china-said-it-would-return-a-seized-us-naval-drone-trump-told-them-to-‘keep-it’/ar-AAlHgST?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp



http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAlGPB9.img?h=1080&w=1920&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=567&y=134

Docthehun
12-18-2016, 12:41 PM
Diplomacy under the current administration.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-smooth-resolution-expected-us-navy-drone-issue-085342299.html

Diplomacy under the next administration.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-smooth-resolution-expected-us-navy-drone-issue-085342299.html

Adelaide
12-18-2016, 02:10 PM
Finders, keepers. Nothing worth having kittens over.

Maybe the military should take more caution in the future. This seems more like a US fuck-up than anything. You certainly don't start wars over your own fuck-ups.

Peter1469
12-18-2016, 02:16 PM
Finders, keepers. Nothing worth having kittens over.

Maybe the military should take more caution in the future. This seems more like a US fuck-up than anything. You certainly don't start wars over your own fuck-ups.

The ship is a survey vessel that although owned by the US Navy, is manned by civilians.