The US/China standoff -- opinions from the rest of the world?
-
I'm an American who has spent a great deal of time overseas for work...at the moment, however, I'm in the US and was curious how people outside the US view the brewing storm over the American "spy" plane which is currently in China. I spoke to a friend last night who is a atmospheric scientist, and his data collection aircraft is basically the same airplane as the one which is now in China. He says that the plane is old, slow, and big....that he would be very surprised if it could hit a fighter unless the fighter pilot was asleep. Should the US aplogize? Should the US cut off trade relations? Should the crew be held in China? Should the plane be returned to the US?
-
I'm an American who has spent a great deal of time overseas for work...at the moment, however, I'm in the US and was curious how people outside the US view the brewing storm over the American "spy" plane which is currently in China. I spoke to a friend last night who is a atmospheric scientist, and his data collection aircraft is basically the same airplane as the one which is now in China. He says that the plane is old, slow, and big....that he would be very surprised if it could hit a fighter unless the fighter pilot was asleep. Should the US aplogize? Should the US cut off trade relations? Should the crew be held in China? Should the plane be returned to the US?
Many people in the UK are not viewing this in isolation , but as an alarming trend in which G.W.Bush appears to be moving towards an Amercia first (foremost and only) policy . This is much more alarming than the fact that a US spy plane had a collision. I suspect that if you strip of the detail and look at the event in isolation , then America is in the right. But the US has just okeyed a big arms shipment to Taiwan , and called China its number one competitor (or was it enemy). To then find itself in the middle of a diplomatic incident where fault is contested is hardly a big suprise. This is all rather odd since Bush senior was ambassedor to China for a while , and would be expected to understand that in terms of diplomacy things are hardly ever as they are portrayed. The most worrying thing to come out of all of this is Dubya's approach to the rest of the world. He may be able to run the worlds last superpower for a while wearing blinkers to the rest of the world , but at sometime he will realise that the world is now a small place and globalisation means that the country state is counting for less and less. Who knows , when he realises this , we may even see Dubya protesting alongside the rioters at the next WTO meeting .:-D
-
I'm an American who has spent a great deal of time overseas for work...at the moment, however, I'm in the US and was curious how people outside the US view the brewing storm over the American "spy" plane which is currently in China. I spoke to a friend last night who is a atmospheric scientist, and his data collection aircraft is basically the same airplane as the one which is now in China. He says that the plane is old, slow, and big....that he would be very surprised if it could hit a fighter unless the fighter pilot was asleep. Should the US aplogize? Should the US cut off trade relations? Should the crew be held in China? Should the plane be returned to the US?
I'm British and I share most of the opinions of Andrew Torrance. However, I also think that America was asking for it, flying intel missions so close to China. Yes, 13 miles may have been technically in international waters and airspace, but I bet if a Chinese aircraft tried to fly even within 50 miles of the US's west coast, it'd be met by a flight of F-15s, and given stern warnings. Even if it was damaged, (I agree it seems obvious who bumped into who) if it then tried to "invade" US airspace without permission, and then tried to land at Nellis airbase, it would get shot down. In my opinion, that's the equivalent to what has happened. I have sympathy for the crew of the EP-3, but in my opinion, America seems to think it can do anything, and other countries should bend over backwards to let it do that. (The Kyoto protocol is another example). Throughout the cold war, these sort of things happened regularly (admittedly without aircraft landing on the other side's airbases), but it was not unknown for aircraft to touch wings and try to "gently" force the other aircraft away. Hell, there was an incident involving an RAF F3 and a Russian T-95 over the North Sea about 7 years ago. The next step would be to fire tracers across the nose of the plane. As for the aircraft being detained, well, as far as I'm aware, a country can only assume a vehicle (boat, aircraft) is sovereign territory if it was invited there or landed with permission - that didn't happen, despite it being an emergency, so in my opinion, China has a right to look at the Aircraft. America got hold of several aircraft from Russia in the 70s and 80s when they landed at Japanese airbases (through defectors), and America only handed back one of them (MiG25). Cheers, Peter Pearson
-
I'm British and I share most of the opinions of Andrew Torrance. However, I also think that America was asking for it, flying intel missions so close to China. Yes, 13 miles may have been technically in international waters and airspace, but I bet if a Chinese aircraft tried to fly even within 50 miles of the US's west coast, it'd be met by a flight of F-15s, and given stern warnings. Even if it was damaged, (I agree it seems obvious who bumped into who) if it then tried to "invade" US airspace without permission, and then tried to land at Nellis airbase, it would get shot down. In my opinion, that's the equivalent to what has happened. I have sympathy for the crew of the EP-3, but in my opinion, America seems to think it can do anything, and other countries should bend over backwards to let it do that. (The Kyoto protocol is another example). Throughout the cold war, these sort of things happened regularly (admittedly without aircraft landing on the other side's airbases), but it was not unknown for aircraft to touch wings and try to "gently" force the other aircraft away. Hell, there was an incident involving an RAF F3 and a Russian T-95 over the North Sea about 7 years ago. The next step would be to fire tracers across the nose of the plane. As for the aircraft being detained, well, as far as I'm aware, a country can only assume a vehicle (boat, aircraft) is sovereign territory if it was invited there or landed with permission - that didn't happen, despite it being an emergency, so in my opinion, China has a right to look at the Aircraft. America got hold of several aircraft from Russia in the 70s and 80s when they landed at Japanese airbases (through defectors), and America only handed back one of them (MiG25). Cheers, Peter Pearson
"Even if it was damaged, (I agree it seems obvious who bumped into who) if it then tried to "invade" US airspace without permission, and then tried to land at Nellis airbase, it would get shot down." No, it would not. The policy of the U.S. Air Force and your own Royal Air Force are the same. We'd just follow it, especially if it had called mayday and was damaged. Cubana Airlines has often flown right down the land mass of the east coast on scheduled flights from Canada to Cuba that were supposed to remain over water. When they do it, we just follow them, we don't shoot them down. As far as the airplane goes, I don't think anyone really cares much. From the pictures, it would need a lot of work to fly again, and it's already been compromised. In the past, it's gone both ways. When Victor Belniko (sp?) defected to Japan in a Mig-25 back in the 70s, we gave the Russians their Mig back in pieces. On the other hand, every year or so a Cuban Mig defects and lands in Florida. In those cases, we let the Cubans come get their airplane the next day. Note that even though Florida has the only operation surface-to-air missile batteries in the U.S., we don't shot them down when they do it. I think China ought to chill out and give us back our guys. They are pour gasoline on the fire for no purpose that I can see. Jim, present programmer, former USAF navigator
-
"Even if it was damaged, (I agree it seems obvious who bumped into who) if it then tried to "invade" US airspace without permission, and then tried to land at Nellis airbase, it would get shot down." No, it would not. The policy of the U.S. Air Force and your own Royal Air Force are the same. We'd just follow it, especially if it had called mayday and was damaged. Cubana Airlines has often flown right down the land mass of the east coast on scheduled flights from Canada to Cuba that were supposed to remain over water. When they do it, we just follow them, we don't shoot them down. As far as the airplane goes, I don't think anyone really cares much. From the pictures, it would need a lot of work to fly again, and it's already been compromised. In the past, it's gone both ways. When Victor Belniko (sp?) defected to Japan in a Mig-25 back in the 70s, we gave the Russians their Mig back in pieces. On the other hand, every year or so a Cuban Mig defects and lands in Florida. In those cases, we let the Cubans come get their airplane the next day. Note that even though Florida has the only operation surface-to-air missile batteries in the U.S., we don't shot them down when they do it. I think China ought to chill out and give us back our guys. They are pour gasoline on the fire for no purpose that I can see. Jim, present programmer, former USAF navigator
"No, it would not. The policy of the U.S. Air Force and your own Royal Air Force are the same. We'd just follow it, especially if it had called mayday and was damaged. Cubana Airlines has often flown right down the land mass of the east coast on scheduled flights from Canada to Cuba that were supposed to remain over water." Okay, fair point. But that's if it's a civilian aircraft - not a bomber. The shadowing aircraft will ident the "intruder" and see what type of threat it poses. Admittedly your aircraft was unarmed, and was no immediate threat to China, so perhaps that's why the Chinese let it in (I don't really know what happened - I heard one report that it was forced in by the other Chinese F8 after the other one crashed) - but it can't really be classed as a civilian aircraft. I know I'm being picky, but there is a difference (although the Soviets didn't think so back in '82 with the Korean Airlines Jumbo). Cheers, Peter
-
"Even if it was damaged, (I agree it seems obvious who bumped into who) if it then tried to "invade" US airspace without permission, and then tried to land at Nellis airbase, it would get shot down." No, it would not. The policy of the U.S. Air Force and your own Royal Air Force are the same. We'd just follow it, especially if it had called mayday and was damaged. Cubana Airlines has often flown right down the land mass of the east coast on scheduled flights from Canada to Cuba that were supposed to remain over water. When they do it, we just follow them, we don't shoot them down. As far as the airplane goes, I don't think anyone really cares much. From the pictures, it would need a lot of work to fly again, and it's already been compromised. In the past, it's gone both ways. When Victor Belniko (sp?) defected to Japan in a Mig-25 back in the 70s, we gave the Russians their Mig back in pieces. On the other hand, every year or so a Cuban Mig defects and lands in Florida. In those cases, we let the Cubans come get their airplane the next day. Note that even though Florida has the only operation surface-to-air missile batteries in the U.S., we don't shot them down when they do it. I think China ought to chill out and give us back our guys. They are pour gasoline on the fire for no purpose that I can see. Jim, present programmer, former USAF navigator
It is easy to argue about the detail of this particular incident , and that is what I expect the American media to concentrate on , for the simple reason that according to international law they appear to be the innocent party . However , and here is the main point of my argument , it is niave of Dubya to think that international law counts for much in international politics. Politics is about achieving your ends , making sure your policies are adhered to . Taking that perspective , then this incident looks manufactured by the Chinese , ( or at least fortuitous) , as a direct result of Dubya throwing his weight around over Taiwan and calling names at the Chinese. If Dubya had taken a different approach , not being so public with his condemnations , not setting out to stamp his authority on American foreign policy in such a macho way , then he could have achieved his aims without all this aggro. As it is , we are now in a situation with American service personell in captivity , and the Chinese arguing that they caused an accident . It will all come down to how much the Americans and the Chinese value their relationship. Regards Torrance
-
"No, it would not. The policy of the U.S. Air Force and your own Royal Air Force are the same. We'd just follow it, especially if it had called mayday and was damaged. Cubana Airlines has often flown right down the land mass of the east coast on scheduled flights from Canada to Cuba that were supposed to remain over water." Okay, fair point. But that's if it's a civilian aircraft - not a bomber. The shadowing aircraft will ident the "intruder" and see what type of threat it poses. Admittedly your aircraft was unarmed, and was no immediate threat to China, so perhaps that's why the Chinese let it in (I don't really know what happened - I heard one report that it was forced in by the other Chinese F8 after the other one crashed) - but it can't really be classed as a civilian aircraft. I know I'm being picky, but there is a difference (although the Soviets didn't think so back in '82 with the Korean Airlines Jumbo). Cheers, Peter
Wasn't it carrying air to surface missiles ?
-
It is easy to argue about the detail of this particular incident , and that is what I expect the American media to concentrate on , for the simple reason that according to international law they appear to be the innocent party . However , and here is the main point of my argument , it is niave of Dubya to think that international law counts for much in international politics. Politics is about achieving your ends , making sure your policies are adhered to . Taking that perspective , then this incident looks manufactured by the Chinese , ( or at least fortuitous) , as a direct result of Dubya throwing his weight around over Taiwan and calling names at the Chinese. If Dubya had taken a different approach , not being so public with his condemnations , not setting out to stamp his authority on American foreign policy in such a macho way , then he could have achieved his aims without all this aggro. As it is , we are now in a situation with American service personell in captivity , and the Chinese arguing that they caused an accident . It will all come down to how much the Americans and the Chinese value their relationship. Regards Torrance
China is making a terrible blunder here. By their childish actions they are generating ill will among the American people that was never there before. Both Dubya and Clinton were cool to sale of advanced weapons to Taiwan, but now congressmen from weapons producing states are beating the drums for these sales. China needs to let our people go and put this unfortunate accident behind us. Jim
-
Wasn't it carrying air to surface missiles ?
No - if it was a P-3 it would have been carrying 2 harpoons for anti-submarine missions - but if it was doing that I doubt it would have been so close to Chinese airspace. Cheers, Peter
-
China is making a terrible blunder here. By their childish actions they are generating ill will among the American people that was never there before. Both Dubya and Clinton were cool to sale of advanced weapons to Taiwan, but now congressmen from weapons producing states are beating the drums for these sales. China needs to let our people go and put this unfortunate accident behind us. Jim
The Chinese "government" needs to take account of Chinese public opinion, and believe me, it's very anti-American (and that's without the government stirring things up - although they have in the past). I believe that's why they are taking such an unusual line. Ever since the stupid bombing of the Chinese embassy, the Chinese public have on the whole been anti-American (although it was the government that made them this way initially). Cheers, Peter
-
I'm an American who has spent a great deal of time overseas for work...at the moment, however, I'm in the US and was curious how people outside the US view the brewing storm over the American "spy" plane which is currently in China. I spoke to a friend last night who is a atmospheric scientist, and his data collection aircraft is basically the same airplane as the one which is now in China. He says that the plane is old, slow, and big....that he would be very surprised if it could hit a fighter unless the fighter pilot was asleep. Should the US aplogize? Should the US cut off trade relations? Should the crew be held in China? Should the plane be returned to the US?
-
I'm an American who has spent a great deal of time overseas for work...at the moment, however, I'm in the US and was curious how people outside the US view the brewing storm over the American "spy" plane which is currently in China. I spoke to a friend last night who is a atmospheric scientist, and his data collection aircraft is basically the same airplane as the one which is now in China. He says that the plane is old, slow, and big....that he would be very surprised if it could hit a fighter unless the fighter pilot was asleep. Should the US aplogize? Should the US cut off trade relations? Should the crew be held in China? Should the plane be returned to the US?
it looks highly improbable that a big lumbering prop driven plane could hit anything that wasn't *asking* to be hit. so, in my opinion, china should return our guys and our plane and go back to hassling its own people. :) -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
US "MUST" apologize. US "MUST" promise not to send its spy planes to any country. US "MUST" pay for the damages caused by its plane. US aircraft crew "MUST" be punished according to chinese rules.
you "MUST" be kidding. ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
you "MUST" be kidding. ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
I have no idea what is going to happen next , but it is going to be interesting to watch how Dubya handles it . Is he going to go for the popularist macho approach , or the pragmatic political approach . Regards Torrance:confused:
-
I have no idea what is going to happen next , but it is going to be interesting to watch how Dubya handles it . Is he going to go for the popularist macho approach , or the pragmatic political approach . Regards Torrance:confused:
i was just thinking the other day how long it's been since the world had a really good knockdown dragout war - 50 years? that's a long time. maybe W's been thinking the same thing. we can't watch WWII documentaries forever! W's an idiot. he and his whole klan scare me and make me feel embarassed to be an american. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
i was just thinking the other day how long it's been since the world had a really good knockdown dragout war - 50 years? that's a long time. maybe W's been thinking the same thing. we can't watch WWII documentaries forever! W's an idiot. he and his whole klan scare me and make me feel embarassed to be an american. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
Why cant it be solved with a quick game of rollerball between the politicos ?:-O Regards Torrance
-
I'm an American who has spent a great deal of time overseas for work...at the moment, however, I'm in the US and was curious how people outside the US view the brewing storm over the American "spy" plane which is currently in China. I spoke to a friend last night who is a atmospheric scientist, and his data collection aircraft is basically the same airplane as the one which is now in China. He says that the plane is old, slow, and big....that he would be very surprised if it could hit a fighter unless the fighter pilot was asleep. Should the US aplogize? Should the US cut off trade relations? Should the crew be held in China? Should the plane be returned to the US?
about a million Americans have died as a direct consequence of the asinine political incompetence of the countries of Europe. On the other hand, none of them have died as a consequence of ours. Can somebody please explain to me why we still care what their political opinions are? Or what they think of our foreign policies? Heck, without us, they would all be sending their opinions in German, if they were allowed to send them at all. Thank God the U.S. is finally running the show! Set back and take notes, my English friends, let President Bush show you how its done. Stan Shannon, American.
-
I'm an American who has spent a great deal of time overseas for work...at the moment, however, I'm in the US and was curious how people outside the US view the brewing storm over the American "spy" plane which is currently in China. I spoke to a friend last night who is a atmospheric scientist, and his data collection aircraft is basically the same airplane as the one which is now in China. He says that the plane is old, slow, and big....that he would be very surprised if it could hit a fighter unless the fighter pilot was asleep. Should the US aplogize? Should the US cut off trade relations? Should the crew be held in China? Should the plane be returned to the US?
-
US "MUST" apologize. US "MUST" promise not to send its spy planes to any country. US "MUST" pay for the damages caused by its plane. US aircraft crew "MUST" be punished according to chinese rules.
"US "MUST" apologize. US "MUST" promise not to send its spy planes to any country. US "MUST" pay for the damages caused by its plane. US aircraft crew "MUST" be punished according to chinese rules." yes yes yes I agree -- and I'm proud to say I'm an American, although not proud that Dubya is in power... you have to realize that Dubya and his daddy's boys on the Supreme Court essentially took the American People's democratic freedoms away from them last December.. so try not to be too hard on the average American -- even if he/she voted for Dubya it was our Supreme Court who propped him up into power. Brian Hart
-
i was just thinking the other day how long it's been since the world had a really good knockdown dragout war - 50 years? that's a long time. maybe W's been thinking the same thing. we can't watch WWII documentaries forever! W's an idiot. he and his whole klan scare me and make me feel embarassed to be an american. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com