Comments on: China Tests Obama; US Ship Threatened

By: Buffrat

Buffrat — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:12:54 +0000

Eat me you chinese dick head, I anticipate a day when your Navy will try that with a USS rather then USNS ship. The skipper of the warship will be just a tad bit more willing to confront your Navy and you’ll find that your frigette gets to see how well they act as submarines while they head to the bottom.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:19:18 +0000

International waters are just that, it is only natural that China wants to determine what type of character our leadership now has. Expect a lot more of this type of activity until such time as we react, one way or the other.

By: Stephen R. Fisher

Stephen R. Fisher — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:53:07 +0000

My fellow Americans: Don’t think for a MOMENT that the Chinese are our “friends”. They are not, they never were and they never will be. They are our RIVALS, and they are looking after their self-interests, as are we. I have often wondered what the Chinese wanted in regards to Tibet. The answer is LITHIUM … the needed resource of the upcoming are of Electric vehicles. Interesting article in Wikipedia, see
“Production & World Supply”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Production_and_world_supply

By: Ervin Thidwick

Ervin Thidwick — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:54:34 +0000

Let’s see what our response will be when the Chinese are monitoring submarines 75nm off of our coasts.

By: Joseph Melbourn

Joseph Melbourn — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:54:37 +0000

77705256
Wow.
Just the same as when Iraq challenged USA in regard to PSC’s.

We do what all politicians do, run away!

By: Vle

Vle — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:26:12 +0000

Do not talk much. They are not testing us but they are threatening us. Shoot all the ships down for “warning” to their admin. If they do harass us again, destroy all their navy ships in the south [china] sea.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:16:24 +0000

The Chinese are wolves in sheeps clothing. Next time send a F/A-18 to buzz thier ships at 1,000 ft doing 600 knots. As for you CW, the Navy WILL send a ship armed to the teeth next time. I bet ur Chi-com’s blink first.

By: JC

JC — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:10:22 +0000

Has anyone challenged the validity of the Chinese Economic Exclusion Zone in the world court? Other than sending ships through it, are we doing anything positive on the diplomatic front? Not that diplomacy typically succeeds without military support, they are rather synergistic.

By: Tony Conner

Tony Conner — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:43:10 +0000

There is a solution here, send the ocenographic ships in with destroyer escorts or better yet, a Los Angeles class attack submarine and let the Chinese know it is there. They are being more aggressive because they think the US will back down. The Bush administration didn’t back down and now the Obama administration will have to show it has the resolve to counter such actions. The Chinese and North Koreans are both trying to push the new US administration. I hope he lets the US Navy leadership handle the situation without interference. They would send in the unarmed ships with escorts.

By: cw

cw — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:43:02 +0000

it’s a navy vessel further outside its own waters than the chinese ships, that is what you call hostile!

pot calling kettle black situation.

and to say a us navy ship is unarmed is just ridiculously blatant lies.

send a civil ship next time america, you dodgey pricks.

By: rkka

rkka — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:37:49 +0000

Hm. Considering whose coastline these incidents happen close to, it looks to me that it has been the Chinese who have been the ones being prodded and tested. Continually. And by a country with something of a habit of militarily attacking other countries.

By: Michael Nickeas

Michael Nickeas — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:06:52 +0000

Taking into consideration the above mentioned facts in regards to these acts of agression and recklessness, it appears to me that both nations have a lot to be desired in the way they go about projecting their influence through their respective military arms. I hope that common sense will prevail, but alas I will not hold my breath. The thing about sabre-rattling is usually someome ends up with a nasty cut or worse.

By: MtnCat

MtnCat — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:08:04 +0000

It shows how emboldened they are becoming by the U.S. beginning to pull out of Iraq where we are less of a threat to “their” oil. They have been subverting our interests there for a long time, the ASAT incident was another way of testing our resolve. China is nowhere near as benign long-term as many make them out to be. Financial warfare is still war.

By: Tom Skypek

Tom Skypek — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:31:06 +0000

I understand that this was a “test” of the new administration and I share the view that China’s senior political leadership was certainly in the loop on this.

But what benefits does China derive from this “test”? Is this akin to an insecure child acting out for attention? Or is it a diversionary tactic as Aurora posited? What type of response were they hoping to elicit?Clearly there is an emerging pattern here of testing new administrations. “China tests Obama”—but to what end?

By: Aurora

Aurora — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:41:25 +0000

This incident could be an attempt to divert the Chinese public's attention from the economic difficulties to the "threat" from "foreign devils", who continually "conspire" to detract from China's "greatness"?By the way, does anyone in OPNAV remember the PUEBLO incident and how that came about?

By: Miguel N. S.

Miguel N. S. — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:41:58 +0000

Perhaps we’re reading too much into this.

This is just S.O.P. for the Chinese. The Koreans tend to do the same.

The only goal is to test the administration.
To find out if it is run by hawks or by doves.

Would the former CoS of the South Sea Fleet have been very different?

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:54:24 +0000

Gvosdev may be assuming too much with regard to whether central leaders directed the naval challenge. There is deep history of
institutions within the Chinese govt not communicating. In the 2007 incident when the USS Kitty Hawk was refused a port visit in Hong Kong, it now appears the PLA and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had divergent agendas. Also, I think its important to note that the PLAN did not challenge the ship with naval vessels of an offensive nature. In spite of the dangerous maneuvering, this seems to suggest they were trying to send a forceful yet measured response.

Finally, the small paragraph about the EP-3 is a bit misleading. The PLAAF certainly intended to buzz the US aircraft and intimidate it, but there wasn’t an intent to have the plane “forced down.” The collision between the US and Chinese aircraft was ultimately accidental, and resulted in the Chinese pilot dying.

By: Nikolas Gvosdev

Nikolas Gvosdev — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:53:24 +0000

Interesting theory, ReiterN. This is after all only the latest in a series of incidents over the past week. PACOM issued a press release that noted, in part:

“The incident took place in international waters in the South China Sea, about 75 miles south of Hainan Island. It was preceded by days of increasingly aggressive conduct by Chinese vessels:

* On March 4, a Chinese Bureau of Fisheries Patrol vessel used a
high-intensity spotlight to illuminate the entire length of the ocean surveillance ship USNS Victorious several times, including its bridge crew.
USNS Victorious was conducting lawful military operations in the Yellow Sea, about 125 nautical miles from China’s coast. The Chinese ship then crossed Victorious’ bow at a range of about 1400 yards in darkness without notice or warning. The following day, a Chinese Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft conducted 12 fly-bys of Victorious at an altitude of about 400 feet and a range of 500 yards.

* On March 5, without notice or warning, a Chinese frigate
approached USNS Impeccable and proceeded to cross its bow at a range of approximately 100 yards. This was followed less than two hours later by a Chinese Y-12 aircraft conducting 11 fly-bys of Impeccable at an altitude of 600 feet and a range from 100–300 feet. The frigate then crossed Impeccable’s bow yet again, this time at a range of approximately 400–500 yards without rendering courtesy or notice of her intentions.

* On March 7, a PRC intelligence collection ship (AGI) challenged
USNS Impeccable over bridge-to-bridge radio, calling her operations illegal and directing Impeccable to leave the area or “suffer the consequences.”

The Chinese ships involved in the March 8 incident included a Chinese Navy intelligence collection ship (AGI), a Bureau of Maritime Fisheries Patrol Vessel, a State Oceanographic Administration patrol vessel, and two small Chinese-flagged trawlers.”

By: ReiterN

ReiterN — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:15:01 +0000

Could part of this saber-rattling be to take attention away from Tibet and the 50th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s exile to India?

By: Nikolas Gvosdev

Nikolas Gvosdev — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:23:48 +0000

The new Chinese commander that I had in mind is Rear Admiral Du Jingchen–who is currently commanding the Chinese vessels on patrol in the Gulf of Aden.

He became the chief of staff of the South Sea Fleet in August 2007 after serving as assistant chief of staff at PLAN (People’s Liberation Army-Navy) headquarters in Beijing.

China has announced it will beef up its fleet with an eye to protecting its trade routes, which means a greater presence in the Indian Ocean, to start.

It will also be interesting to see whether any of the ships that were involved in this incident take part in the Aman exercises hosted by Pakistan–in which the U.S. Navy is also scheduled to take part.