It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China harvest which obtains in the South China Sea P-3 crash event

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Here is one more analysis is why do you guys not to be strange the pilot seem to been hero but never be commemorated in China since if he has died?




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
Here is one more analysis is why do you guys not to be strange the pilot seem to been hero but never be commemorated in China since if he has died?


how would he be commerated and would we even here about it. IMO he was called a hero just to arouse a bit of national furver against the US in China nothing more.
What do you think they're going to do, have internationally televised parades, lol.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   
There are a lot of heroes in the US that died before they were proclaimed heroes. MANY of the Congressional Medal of Honor winners were awarded the Medal after they died in combat, or in combat related ways. Two Delta Force Snipers in Somalia had the Medal presented to their wives, because they went in by themselves to try to hold back the crowd from the Michael Durant crash site and were killed in the process.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Completely wrong
The EP-3 flight was one of 200 conducted that year off the Chinese coast, it had nothing to do with you Sovremenny destroyer. It was an ELINT mission monitoring electronic emissions from the Chinese mainland


200 flights?. Where did you pull this out of


Too lazy to search are we. Well all too easy.


The number of missions being flown today by Aries, Rivet Joint or P-3 Orion aircraft targeting China number above 200 per year, U.S. sources said.

www.globalsecurity.org...



Maybe a quick search on google you should be able to find what ELINT aircraft do. And somehow the flights where conducted during the first visit of the Sovremenny to the south where its radar and Anti-aircraft abilites can be acessed.


Hmm, I know exactly what ELINT is, as I was the one to mention it. You're the only one who makes the link with the Sovremenny
You don't fly a plane all the way along the Chinese coast to target a ship - common sense.

In acctual fact the reconaissance flight path was used regularly.


Our EP-3 was flying an overt, reconnaissance and surveillance mission in international airspace in an aircraft clearly marked 'United States Navy,'" he said. "It was on a well-known flight path that we had used for decades.

www.defenselink.mil...



And please show me the flight path of the EP-3. Because it is widely known why the EP-3 was in the region or was it for the local scenery. And in 2001 it was a little outpost. Now after that event it has now become the main chinese communication and sateillite base. What other reason could they have of putting their new EP-3E in the region.


What's your point
It's a spy flight, so of course it's looking at military facilities - so what - that isn't in dispute.


It was within 140km of chinas border


THat is well with-in chinas border. This was a illegal action. Anything like that in the cold war and you could have seen more than just 2 fighters. How much time were the russians sent back away from american carriers. Why can america do this and get away with it.


You really have to brush up on what an international border is. The EP-3 was well outside China's airspace
Sea and airspace territorial limits only extend 12 Nautical miles past a country's borders, that's right, that includes China






Duh, didgital discs would be wiped then physically destroyed, computers could be destroyed usng thermite.


And do you realise how much computers how much dightal disk on a EP-3?. You think you can destroy them or even try to when your aircraft is damaged. You think you can mange that or would you be strapped in hoping you'll see you family again.


All personnel are highly trained and regularly practice procedures like the one in 2001.


Physical security of the intelligence collection equipment, software, and data on board EP-3E ARIES II is of paramount importance to the intelligence community and therefore specific procedures have been developed to protect the equipment and data from unauthorized disclosure. The EP-3A ARIES II is basically a "flying SCIF" a (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) due to the intelligence collection operations carried out onboard.

According to DCID 1/21, the manual for physical security standards for Sensitive Compartment Information Facilites, "if an aircraft were to make an unscheduled emergency landing in hostile territory, all SCI material will be immediately destroyed, with the destruction process preferably taking place prior to landing."

The manual further states that "all personel will rehearse emergency destruction before each mission." and that "an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) will be written that provides for the evacuation and/or destruction of classified material. Evacuation plans and destruction equipment must be approved by the CSA (Cognizant Security Authority) and tested by mission personel."

www.globalsecurity.org...



Its so easy for you to say what you think they can do but in practice its much different. You couldn't prepare for your pilot from crashing into a chinese fighter. Have you seen the interior and how the computers are organized and positioned. No way you could take it apart and get the senitive information with screwdrivers and burn or whatever you wanted to do with it.


Oh so we'll just take your expert word for it
You post nothing to the contrary of my information just your own personal biased opinion. Hardly fact



As far as we know the EP-3 didn't land with any damaged equipment and that was one of the reasons why america wanted the fighters back so much


What exactly do you know ? Nothing. how would you know if data and equipment had been destroyed




Would it make sense for the chinese pilot which has full vision and risk his life just raming his plane into the EP-3 propellors or the american pilot which couldn't see where the fighter was and just turned to get a better view?. Logic tells me that the american was at fault


Logic blah, you wouldn't know what that was if it hit you in the face. The Chinese made a move a little too risky for his skill and it cost him his life, not to mention he almost murdered 24 other people.


And please tell me why a fighter which is a lot smaller would intentionally ram into a much much larger aircraft. And being flown by a pilot which was known for his quick manuvers. According to some US reports the EP-3 was banking towards the J-8 when it happened. That explains the out of the blue veering


LMAO, if he was so well known for his quick maneuvers how come he crashed
Kinda contradicting yourself. Wang Wei was a hot-dog whose skills weren't as good as he thought they were. Where is your source that the EP-3 was banking into the plane ? Making it up.


The only footage they have is the one where he crashed. thats the one where he flashed his e-mail


No the footage was taken on a previous mission. Funny thing is if that video had been released to the Chinese government and there never was an incident, Wang Wei would probably be considered a spy for trying to have back channel communications with an American spy plane crew.



You can see yourself how close he was and was about 1~3 meters from the propellors. ANY turn from the EP-3 out of the blue could have knocked it out which it did. It was under the wing.


Only an idiot would fly that close. Even hitting turbulence would cause a plane to move more than a few meters. Obviously it was his fault, the EP-3 was hardly trying to buzz the J-8




Looks like they smashed it into something. ANd no way it could have been caused by a landing because if it touched the ground it would have stopped in on direction. Im thinking it must have cliped his cockpit or his tail then stalled and broke


Umm yeah and what ? We all know that's where the J-8 hit the EP-3. What's your point ?

Thought I might ad this as well :


Let me just make a comment about several other reconnaissance flights
or, I should say, instances where one nation's aircraft landed at
another nation's airport, but without permission and because of some
sort of emergency.

On February 27, 1974, a Soviet AN-24 reconnaissance aircraft was low
on fuel and made an emergency landing at Gambell Airfield in Alaska.
The crew remained on the aircraft overnight. They were provided space
heaters and food. They were refueled the next day and they departed.
The crew was not detained and the aircraft was not detained.

On April 6, 1993, a Chinese civilian airliner declared an in-flight
emergency and landed in Shemya, Alaska, in the United States. It was
apparently a problem of turbulence; very, very severe turbulence to
the point that two people died, dozens were seriously injured, and the
plane made an emergency landing on the U.S. airfield. The aircraft was
repaired and refueled without charge, and it departed.

On 26 March, 1994, Russian military surveillance aircraft, monitoring
a NATO anti-submarine warfare exercise, was low on fuel and made an
emergency landing at Thule Air Base in Greenland. It was on the ground
about six hours, the crew was fed, the aircraft was refueled and it
departed.

Now, I mention these to point out that reconnaissance flights have
been going on for decades. They are not unusual. They are well-
understood by all nations that are involved in these types of matters.
And in similar situations, nations have not detained crews and they
have not kept aircraft.

hongkong.usconsulate.gov...


[edit on 26-3-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
It was in international waters. Anybody's game/arena.
There was a video of the close encounter just before the collision somewhere here on ATS. Maybe its been posted before on this therad itself.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
China stealing technology.....nah I can't believe it.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Too lazy to search are we. Well all too easy.


The number of missions being flown today by Aries, Rivet Joint or P-3 Orion aircraft targeting China number above 200 per year, U.S. sources said.


And your exact words were

"The EP-3 flight was one of 200 conducted that year off the Chinese coast"

Forgot what you wrote?...to easy


Hmm, I know exactly what ELINT is, as I was the one to mention it. You're the only one who makes the link with the Sovremenny
You don't fly a plane all the way along the Chinese coast to target a ship - common sense.


........ Can you please tell me any other reason then?. Think back to 2001 when china had jsut got the soverny class ships with the moskit missile. The taiwan missile crisis in 1996?. Think back......


In acctual fact the reconaissance flight path was used regularly.


Claimed by whom? .............


You really have to brush up on what an international border is. The EP-3 was well outside China's airspace
Sea and airspace territorial limits only extend 12 Nautical miles past a country's borders, that's right, that includes China


LoL...YOU might want to bush up on what and where this incidecnt took place. It happened in chinas EEZ. This states that the state is in control of 200 miles adjacent to their land border to develop oil and natural resources etc. But allows the innocent passage of international shiping as long as it does not breach the sovernity of the nation state. The EP-3 was conducting surveillance (also known as spying) on chinas coastal port. that is in breach of article 58.

One other example is chinese overflights and a korean spy shp in japans EEZ
Japan sinks 'North Korea spying ship'

Refers to the location

Yeah in the EEZ?





All personnel are highly trained and regularly practice procedures like the one in 2001.


Your proof is where?

You can quote the procedures they take and anything thing you want. But please where is your proof that on their mission they destroyed their data?. Assuming?



Oh so we'll just take your expert word for it


No by all means dont take my word for it. provide your edvidence that you so bodly claim that they actually destroyed it and instead of posting procedures why dont you post actual proof instead of bragging about it?. huh. Is that hard


Logic blah, you wouldn't know what that was if it hit you in the face. The Chinese made a move a little too risky for his skill and it cost him his life, not to mention he almost murdered 24 other people.


Here everybody. this is what this guy resorts to. If i were you i would feel embarrased...

So you got video edvidence of this now?. You said i have biased views while you quote you argument from the american press. Please give us your inside sources?.



LMAO, if he was so well known for his quick maneuvers how come he crashed Kinda contradicting yourself. Wang Wei was a hot-dog whose skills weren't as good as he thought they were. Where is your source that the EP-3 was banking into the plane ? Making it up.


Well any source that says the J-8II is sheer stupidity

here is a image showing the size difference along with the field of vision


Spy plane banked suddenly before mid-air crash


THE US spy plane that collided in mid-air with a Chinese fighter at the weekend banked "suddenly" to the left just before impact, according to American officials in China.

Although no precise account of the incident has emerged, the details of apparent evasive action by the American EP-3 surveillance plane could provide the key to what happened. Sources told the Washington Post that Wang Wei, the pilot of the Chinese F-8 jet, flew underneath the EP-3 and was hit when the American pilot altered course.

www.freerepublic.com...

Coming from america officals and comfirming the 2nd J-8 pilots statment of what happened. The best confirmation of events since neither the P-3 gave edvidence of the events

What your saying is the small chinese fighter rammed the much lager and heavier american fighter while there has been no case of chinese aircraft ever ramming another aircraft nor have they ever practised ramming in their training or such. I think your trying to sterotype russian tactics with chinese tactics

While i am saying that the J-8 was underneath the EP-3 while the EP-3 turned slightly which in aircraft turns means a few meters and hit the chinese aircraft



No the footage was taken on a previous mission. Funny thing is if that video had been released to the Chinese government and there never was an incident, Wang Wei would probably be considered a spy for trying to have back channel communications with an American spy plane crew.


Maybe you can tell that to CCTV channel 4




Only an idiot would fly that close. Even hitting turbulence would cause a plane to move more than a few meters. Obviously it was his fault, the EP-3 was hardly trying to buzz the J-8


He might have been crazy for flying that close but he sure as hell wouldn't have rammed into a much larger fighter. Well im just using my logic thats all. Your saying a sucidal chinese pilot rammed a 7 ton plane while im saying the P-3 pilot didn't see the J-8 pilot (which was 1-3 meters away). and turned to see where it was or whatever.

Difference in logic. You piont lies on chinese pilots being sucidal while mine is a ccidental collision




Umm yeah and what ? We all know that's where the J-8 hit the EP-3. What's your point ?


Rammed the plane with the side?. while it was the J-8 nose which was hit?



Thought I might ad this as well :


Well none of them even come close to this fact since the P-3 was in china for 11 days before it was returned.

Neither incident had a fatality nor a badly damaged aircraft



[edit on 27-3-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Opinions?

Rogue1 is basing his point on suicidal chinese fighters

--------------------------

While i am basing it on a mistake on the part of the chinese fighter.

Im going to give you a brief idea on where the chinese fighter was compared and the field of vision of each fighter


The J-8 was 1-3meters away from the EP-3 at the time confirmed by the video down at the bottom. Any small turn from a aircraft equates to a few meters while the EP-3 pilot probaly turned to see where the other fighter was hit the chinese fighter and caused the collision

-----------


U.S. defense officials say they strongly believe that the U.S. plane was flying straight and level, as it customarily does throughout its missions. They say the EP-3's last turn occurred a little less than 10 minutes before the collision--a U-turn away from the Chinese coast and toward Okinawa, Japan, where its flight originated.


While you said it as a fact that it was flying level but from this report they are only assuming it was flying straight and level

------

U.S. accuses China over air collision


HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- A collision between U.S. and Chinese military aircraft has led to Pentagon accusations that China is intercepting U.S. military aircraft in an "unsafe manner."

A U.S. spy plane made an emergency landing Sunday in China after it was clipped by a Chinese jet, the Pentagon said

edition.cnn.com...

While this article does state that china was at fault it only states china was at falut because intercepts were dangerous and againest international rules. Since the rules were not signed by the chinese but the soviets its hard to considered them legal

Here is a list of crashs in the cold war. quite a few buzzings there
home.sprynet.com...


video



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1

Too lazy to search are we. Well all too easy.


The number of missions being flown today by Aries, Rivet Joint or P-3 Orion aircraft targeting China number above 200 per year, U.S. sources said.

www.globalsecurity.org...


And your exact words were

"The EP-3 flight was one of 200 conducted that year off the Chinese coast"

Forgot what you wrote?...to easy


Erm no, the quote os there in black and white, with a link even .....
It says more than 200 spy flights conducted off the Chinese coast a year.

this was what the information related to as if you didn't know :@@


Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by rogue1
Completely wrong The EP-3 flight was one of 200 conducted that year off the Chinese coast, it had nothing to do with you Sovremenny destroyer. It was an ELINT mission monitoring electronic emissions from the Chinese mainland


200 flights?. Where did you pull this out of


I was just showing you the quote and link pertaining to your question. As I have shown I was correct. Who is the one who doesn't seem to remember what they're saying






Hmm, I know exactly what ELINT is, as I was the one to mention it. You're the only one who makes the link with the Sovremenny
You don't fly a plane all the way along the Chinese coast to target a ship - common sense.


........ Can you please tell me any other reason then?. Think back to 2001 when china had jsut got the soverny class ships with the moskit missile. The taiwan missile crisis in 1996?. Think back......


As I've already shown it was one of over 200 flights that year, a routine flight to snoop on mainland chinese EM emissions. Probably looking for where Chinese radar and air defence sites are.



In acctual fact the reconaissance flight path was used regularly.


Claimed by whom? .............


Quoted from Rumsfeld.


"Our EP-3 was flying an overt, reconnaissance and surveillance mission in international airspace in an aircraft clearly marked 'United States Navy,'" he said. "It was on a well-known flight path that we had used for decades.
www.defenselink.mil...




You really have to brush up on what an international border is. The EP-3 was well outside China's airspace
Sea and airspace territorial limits only extend 12 Nautical miles past a country's borders, that's right, that includes China


LoL...YOU might want to bush up on what and where this incidecnt took place. It happened in chinas EEZ. This states that the state is in control of 200 miles adjacent to their land border to develop oil and natural resources etc. But allows the innocent passage of international shiping as long as it does not breach the sovernity of the nation state. The EP-3 was conducting surveillance (also known as spying) on chinas coastal port. that is in breach of article 58.


Hmm, you obviously don't understand what an EEZ is


In international maritime law, an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a seazone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources.

The EEZ is not the soveriegn domain of a nation, it allows them rights in that area for the maritime resources. a Nation does not exercise soveriegn control over the airspace in an EEZ.


1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:

(a) freedom of navigation;

(b) freedom of overflight;

(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;

(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI;

(e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2;

(f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.
www.un.org...






All personnel are highly trained and regularly practice procedures like the one in 2001.


Your proof is where?

You can quote the procedures they take and anything thing you want. But please where is your proof that on their mission they destroyed their data?. Assuming?


My proof is the the link I provided to the procedures they'd use if they landed in a hostile country. It was there in black and white, you choose to ignore it

So by your logic, you think they wouldn't bother doing anything they were trained to do, doesn't make sense does it.




Oh so we'll just take your expert word for it


No by all means dont take my word for it. provide your edvidence that you so bodly claim that they actually destroyed it and instead of posting procedures why dont you post actual proof instead of bragging about it?. huh. Is that hard


Well as I said that is what they were trained to do. Why don't you provide some proof they didn't destroy it ? Come on, you seem sure that they would have completely disregarded procedures, where's your proof ?



Logic blah, you wouldn't know what that was if it hit you in the face. The Chinese made a move a little too risky for his skill and it cost him his life, not to mention he almost murdered 24 other people.


Here everybody. this is what this guy resorts to. If i were you i would feel embarrased...


A person should never be embarrassed for speaking the truth. Thise that reject are the ones who should be embarrassed - how red is your face


So you got video edvidence of this now?. You said i have biased views while you quote you argument from the american press. Please give us your inside sources?.



Yah, most people saw it on the TV at the time and it's on the net.



LMAO, if he was so well known for his quick maneuvers how come he crashed Kinda contradicting yourself. Wang Wei was a hot-dog whose skills weren't as good as he thought they were. Where is your source that the EP-3 was banking into the plane ? Making it up.


Well any source that says the J-8II is sheer stupidity


I stand by what I said, the idiot pilot was flyin only several meters above the EP-3 wing, now if that isn't extremely dangerous flying I don't know what is. The EP-3 was on autopilot as well.


WASHINGTON, April 13, 2001 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters today that U.S. Navy pilot Lt. Shane Osborn's EP-3 plane didn't turn and strike one of the Chinese jets that was "buzzing" the surveillance aircraft.

The EP-3 "was on auto pilot and it did not deviate from a straight and level path until it had been hit by the Chinese fighter aircraft," Rumsfeld said.

The Chinese jet's tail hit the EP-3's number-one engine propeller, Rumsfeld said. Then, the American plane's "auto pilot went off and it made a steep left turn and lost some five-to-eight-thousand feet in altitude as the crew attempted to regain control."

The 24-member EP-3 crew is now undergoing debriefings on Hawaii, Rumsfeld said. He added that he had spoken to Osborn on the phone yesterday morning "to get a first-hand report" about the March 31 incident.

The 10-minute conversation between Rumsfeld and Osborn occurred shortly after 11 a.m. Eastern Time. Rumsfeld was in his Pentagon office and Osborn was with 23 members of his crew on an U.S. Air Force C-17 plane headed for Hawaii.

www.defenselink.mil...




Coming from america officals and comfirming the 2nd J-8 pilots statment of what happened. The best confirmation of events since neither the P-3 gave edvidence of the events


I would say teh article above proves the above statement completely false.


What your saying is the small chinese fighter rammed the much lager and heavier american fighter while there has been no case of chinese aircraft ever ramming another aircraft nor have they ever practised ramming in their training or such. I think your trying to sterotype russian tactics with chinese tactics


Nope, once again you don't read what I say
I said that Wang Wei was a hotdog and was flying dangerously close to the EP-3, he made a mistake and crashed into the EP-3. I never said he intentionally rammed it, you seem to think there maybe a case though as you keep on briingin it up.



He might have been crazy for flying that close but he sure as hell wouldn't have rammed into a much larger fighter. Well im just using my logic thats all. Your saying a sucidal chinese pilot rammed a 7 ton plane while im saying the P-3 pilot didn't see the J-8 pilot (which was 1-3 meters away). and turned to see where it was or whatever.

Difference in logic. You piont lies on chinese pilots being sucidal while mine is a ccidental collision


LOL, the fact that he was flying that close could be considered suicidal. Once again I said that his flying that close was beyound his skill and he crashed into the EP-3, I have never said that he did it intentionally.
You wouldn't find american pilots flying that close to a plane, it's sheer stupidity.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
another smoke screen


Did you miss something here?


Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm, you obviously don't understand what an EEZ is



1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:

(b) freedom of overflight;




" Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law""



[edit on 27-3-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
another smoke screen


Did you miss something here?


Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm, you obviously don't understand what an EEZ is



1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:

(b) freedom of overflight;




" Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law""


In case you didn't realise, the high seas refers to the ocean, not the airspace LMAO. I'm not dealing with the most intelligent person am I


And talking about the freedom of the seas, the US could park an aircraft carrier there and it would be perfectly legal under international law anyway.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The EEZ has NOTHING to do with ELINT flights, or even flights in general. I can fly a plane 13 miles off the coast for weeks at a time if I want to, and I'm in International Airspace. You can escort me all you want, but not interfere with my plane flying UNLESS I break the 12 mile limit. The EEZ says that I can't put fishing boats within 200 miles of your coast and fish, it doesn't say ANYTHING about not being able to fly planes or even sail ships within 200 miles of your coast.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
for crying out loud


EEZ - ECCONOMIC EXCLUSION ZONE - no fishing , drilling for oil , whaleing , trawling the sea bed for manganese nuggets etc - get the picture ???

anyting else is up for grabs - there are precedents for not doing certain things - but no laws with teeth

thats why in times of untrst governments dellare TOTAL exclusion zones - out to 200 miles - and send submarines to enforce them - threatening to deep six anyone who tries to enter without permission

like we did in the falklands - get it now ???



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Puhlease, outside of the axis of evil in the world, who trusts China?

BTW, why is your name ChinaWhite? don't you know what that means in slang?

You guys got lucky, so now you can make copies of new plane and sell it cheap because you don't know how to design one yourselves. You had a good day but don't expect many more of them.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
chinawhite the only country that enforces a 200 mile boundry is the usa, north korea says it has a 200 mile boundry but no one follows that. No one follows chinas 200 mile boundry because you dont have the navy to inforce it , but the usa does. If you actually think that the usa let china get off if sercet info your nuts. The crew would have destoryed it but if they didnt, i doubt that the chinks would have got their hands on it. It would have been blown up on your runway. Chinawhite you are alittle to sure of the goverment of china and there cabilities. In a serious matter china knows to back off, there not that stupid



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
chinawhite the only country that enforces a 200 mile boundry is the usa, north korea says it has a 200 mile boundry but no one follows that. No one follows chinas 200 mile boundry because you dont have the navy to inforce it , but the usa does.


Are you seirous? China doesn't have a navy to enforce their boundary? You've got to be kiddin right? Please check your calender, this is not the 1960s.



If you actually think that the usa let china get off if sercet info your nuts.


And how are you certain that China has not been able to do that? The same way people were so certain the the Russians were unable to penetrate the Manhatten project?



The crew would have destoryed it but if they didnt, i doubt that the chinks would have got their hands on it.


Wow, first of all, thats UNBELIEVABLY racist. I can't even believe people here on ATS tolerate the this b.s.


It would have been blown up on your runway. Chinawhite you are alittle to sure of the goverment of china and there cabilities. In a serious matter china knows to back off, there not that stupid


Funny, in a serious matter, the U.S. was the one that backed off. The last I remember,t he U.S. was the one that took full responsibility and fully apologized for the incident.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I feel I must interject some humor in here after seeing the pics of the dismantled aircraft again.

There was a cartoon floating around in my email for a while that "showed" the Chinese giving us back our aircraft, and it showed hundreds of pieces laying everywhere on the ground.

The cartoon was captioned "SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED!"

I thought it was hilarious.

On a side note about the destruction of equipment or information, I know that the Navy uses DEGAUSSERS to "wipe" disks, etc. and there are weighted bags for putting equipment or paper into to be jettisoned in deep water.

It was before my time in the Navy, but I know that when John Walker and company pulled his national security stunt, the crypo maintenance men were directed to pull the gear out of the racks and dump it overboard, then report to NAVSECGRU that it was done.

JDub



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt

Originally posted by shortmanx5
chinawhite the only country that enforces a 200 mile boundry is the usa, north korea says it has a 200 mile boundry but no one follows that. No one follows chinas 200 mile boundry because you dont have the navy to inforce it , but the usa does.


Are you seirous? China doesn't have a navy to enforce their boundary? You've got to be kiddin right? Please check your calender, this is not the 1960s.



If you actually think that the usa let china get off if sercet info your nuts.


And how are you certain that China has not been able to do that? The same way people were so certain the the Russians were unable to penetrate the Manhatten project?



The crew would have destoryed it but if they didnt, i doubt that the chinks would have got their hands on it.


Wow, first of all, thats UNBELIEVABLY racist. I can't even believe people here on ATS tolerate the this b.s.


It would have been blown up on your runway. Chinawhite you are alittle to sure of the goverment of china and there cabilities. In a serious matter china knows to back off, there not that stupid


Funny, in a serious matter, the U.S. was the one that backed off. The last I remember,t he U.S. was the one that took full responsibility and fully apologized for the incident.



No china doesnt have the navy to enforce a 200 mile boundry, thats why no one follows it. It is also a known fact that the us 7th fleet in the pacific is designed to take on the whole of the their navy.
Alsp china is no where near as powerful as russia. so you cant compare those to, you over estimate china.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I dont remember us sayin sorry to those guys. if we did it was political. china has more to lose than we do.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
In case you didn't realise, the high seas refers to the ocean, not the airspace LMAO. I'm not dealing with the most intelligent person am I


And talking about the freedom of the seas, the US could park an aircraft carrier there and it would be perfectly legal under international law anyway.




Did you know the americans didn't even ratify the UN Convention on Law of Sea ?


Now the high seas does not include airspace as well...brother. but i would expect something like this from rogue1. Nows its not the freedom of overflight but now its what it refers to. i suggest you look up international meanings


and if it wasn't refering to airspace as the high seas why would overflights be under the high seas section......


" 1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States: "

..........


You might want to check out my sources as well.
Source




(1) interfere with or endanger the sovereign rights of the coastal State for the conservation and management of the natural resources, as well as its jurisdiction with regard to the protection and preservation of the marine environment (see Articles 56(1)(a)), 62 and 77, and Part XII);

(2) involve MSR without the consent of the coastal State, or in violation of the other provisions of the Convention (see Articles 56(1)(b) and 246(2), and Part XIII);

(3) interfere with the rights of the coastal States with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures (see Articles 56(1)(b), 60 and 80); or

(4) involve activities that constitute threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter (see Article 301).


You can go check up article 301

-----------------------------------

Article to sum it up better if its not coming from me since rogue1 has a hard time believing chinese people


The EEZ regime, acknowledged by the international community in 1982 by UNCLOS, in many respects, was a product of a compromise between developing countries and industrialized countries. The EEZ regime itself has established some rights for coastal states protecting its off-shore natural resources. It reserves for the coastal nation jurisdiction over economic and environmental activities taking place up to 200 nautical miles offshore. The US, which has the strongest sea power in the world, agreed to some preferential status for coastal states in natural resources (the US set up its own EEZ in 1983) but strongly opposed any restrictions on traditional "freedom of navigation" or "freedom of overflight" in EEZ. (The US signed the UNCLOS but did not ratify it because of other reasons). The US regarded these freedoms as "high sea freedoms" (1983 Reagan Proclaim). Developing countries, on the other hand, tried to extend their jurisdiction in EEZ and to restrict these "freedoms." Brazil and some of the other 77-group states (a group composed primarily of economically-developing nations) claimed that any military exercises or maneuvers in EEZ should be subject to prior consent of the coastal states.

These controversies did not even end after the conclusion of UNCLOS. Article 58, paragraph 1 explicitly stipulates that all states can enjoy freedoms as referred to in Article 87 (High sea freedoms, including freedom of overflight). But developing states also got their points in paragraph three of the same article, which says that when exercising these freedoms, states have "due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal states." However, it is not very clear in UNCLOS that "security interests" (which are irrelevant to natural resources and environment protection) should be included in the rights of coastal states in their EEZ.

Hypocritically, the US, which opposed extension of coastal states' rights and jurisdictions in EEZ, by establishing Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) under its domestic law (US code 14 title 99), extended its jurisdiction on the air space beyond its territorial water. Chinese ambassadors, in an April 4 interview on CNN, argued that if a Chinese military aircraft did the same reconnaissance flight over US offshore, that the US would be opposed to such actions. So far, no one has refuted this argument. It is clear that coastal states can take self-defense countermeasures under national security considerations not withstanding UNCLOS provisions. The US should respect Chinese security considerations, as well as Chinese should respect American's near the US seashore.

Source 3

Source 2

One nation exercising her rights to protect her EEZ

Japan sinks 'North Korea spying ship'

Refers to the location

A american ally none the less






[edit on 28-3-2006 by chinawhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join