Slashdot Mirror
Hyperreality: The U.S-China Standoff
"U.S. and China Look for a Way to Say 'Sorry'," was the striking headline on The New York Times front page Monday. Some of the world's most senior diplomats have been fussing for days over how to phrase sentences in English and Chinese that will stroke both nation's egos, even though no sane person could believe anybody meant this incident to happen. The sticking point is China's public demand for an apology -- "dao qian," a legalistic and formal verbal idea that dates back to its imperial past.
Second to none when it comes to macho military posturing, the U.S. can't say it's sorry for the accident and bring everybody home. Various grim-faced U.S. officials, from the President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State, have been rushing around in their big black limos, and issued guarded expressions of concern and sadness, but nobody can quite bring himself to say the magic words.
Maybe these people could get on IRC and flame each other, then apologize and sort the whole thing out. Think of the money that would be saved.
If anything highlights some of the bankrupt, outmoded practices of the nation-state, and also the reason we will never be so lucky as to see it wither away, it's this incident -- taken quite seriously by the popular media, whose talk shows are full of soundbite-spouting eggheads, military experts and grave government spin doctors.
This all makes Jerry Everard, author of Virtual States: The Internet and the Boundaries of the Nation-State look prescient. In his book, published last year by Routledge Press, Everard challenged the idea, long advocated by digital utopians, that the Net would ultimately break down the national barriers and boundaries and render them both useless and obsolete. If states are hyperreal, then so are agreements and understandings between nationalist governments.
That won't happen, wrote Everard, a professor at the Australian National University, because the new economy is promoting inequities and resentment in many cultures, and because people don't realize that nation-states have two economies: the goods and services economy, and the identity economy.
"While the state's role in the first may be diminishing, its role in the latter is stronger than ever. In today's climate of change and uncertainty, people are turning to nationalism and engaging in regional conflicts over identity," he noted. Identify resulted from the boundary-making process; it was a way of identifying the national Self from the Other, establishing an us-versus them.
The spy plane flap underscores Everard's idea. China and the United States do billions of dollars in trade together, thanks in part to computer networks, and China has spent billions to develop a new communications infrastructure. The country is wiring up rapidly, eager to jump into the new networked global economy, which the U.S. already dominates. Neither country has reason to jeopardize this new relationship, which potentially democratizes China, creates new jobs, helps stabilize that region, and distributes wealth to some impoverished corners of the world.
Except that cultural identity is stronger than the virtual kind, and the nation-state can't seem to overcome some of its most primitive conventions.
Both countries seem willing to damage their relationship over arcane language and diplomatic posturing, which shows why the idea of the virtual state is so unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future. When push comes to shove, identity seems to overcome reason and self-interest. This style of identity politics crops up all over the world -- on the border between India and Pakistan, in Eastern Europe, all over the African continent, in regional and local conflicts in South America. Maybe we're lucky -- a century ago we'd probably already be at war. But this conflict is likely to be resolved eventually, maybe even by the time this is read.
Everard thinks that certain facets of governance -- the economy, research, media -- could in fact become globalized. But he doesn't see the nation-state disappearing. Seventeenth-century Europe was also turbulent, he points out, with countries popping up, disappearing and reforming as political and economic allegiances evolved, as new technologies changed the nature of war, economics and communications. And despite the Euro, it's still home to nations with fierce identities.
The U.S., birthplace of much of the digital revolution and of the idea of the virtual state, doesn't appear either fragile or hyperreal, but Americans are historically narcissistic and ignorant of other countries, blithely imposing their own traditions, values and practices on other parts of the world.
It's almost as if the more threatened these traditional boundaries are by new business models and technologies that connect people, the more these cultures need to assert their own identity, whatever the cost. The Balkans are a grisly testament to the enduring power of nationalism.
For all the new links between the U.S. and China, and for all the hype about new communications technologies bringing the world closer, neither culture seems to get the other. China doesn't fathom that a conservative U.S. president would be eaten alive by Congress and the American public if he apologized for a military confrontation that doesn't appear to have been our fault. The United States seems not to comprehend a tradition that places an enormous premium on honor, face, and responsibility.
Talk about hyperreal.
Why are you being so childish?
Do you have ANY clue what you write about? The P-3 is the air equivalent of the big yellow school bus. It's slow, noisy, and well-known among naval pilots for making unseasoned crew members lose their lunch. The MIG that you seem to think was the innocent victim is more like a Mustang. Small, fast, not that sturdy and much more maneuverable. You're basically suggesting that if a school bus is driving around in a deserted parking lot and two mustangs are circling it, trying to touch bumpers, that it's the school bus at fault when one of the Mustangs ends up as a Car-B-QUE.
You have virtually no experience with the Navy's air programs, no experience with international politics and therefore NO right to suggest you have any idea whatsoever who is at fault.
Asshole. Go thump the Geek Pride bible a bit more. At least you're marginally good at that.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Additionally, it should be conisdered that China has previously used the military strategy of "we have more people than you have bullets", it's a dangerous idea to even hint at accepting responsibility for an incident that wasn't the US's fault. Not to be cynical, but I don't imagine that Beijing would have any great issue with making it procedure to ram every P3 that flew by their coast.
It's a horrible game, and everybody loses. Unfortunately, once somebody starts playing it, there's no obvious way to stop.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
CHINA IS AN OPEN EMAIL RELAY, WAITING FOR SPAMMERS TO RAPE IT REPEATEDLY
Go to Google's Groups (the old Deja news archive) and check out news.admin.net-abuse.email and news.admin.net-abuse.sightings. Look for China, and it's domain ".cn". Look at all the spam being bounced from it. Look at all the attempts to clue in China. Sysadmins and spam fighters have to imitate "freeing Taiwan" messages "erronously sent" to China's government just to shut them down or secure them.
With the continued cluelessness of China, a wall is being built, brick by brick, system by system, blocking any email comming from China. Eventually, a majority of it will be filled by the MAPS RSS and RBL -- filled in concrete. When it is complete, it will be the Greatest Virtual Wall of China ever completed.
Why should we apologize to China for it's lack of security as they "blunder" into the technological age? We want to help, but they continue to loose face over the Internet for being ignorant.
--
WolfSkunks for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
The political system which you advocate had no difficulty in engaging in the most vicious slaughter of the 90s. Occidental culture still has not forgotten the profound insult of this purge, which was by no means limited to Tienamen, and caused a mass import of troops from outside regions because many in the Chinese army refused to fire upon thier own.
In the final analysis, totalitarianism is not a workable form of government, which has been proved in many nations other than China, and which will be proved in China in due course. It is hoped that China will make gradual alterations to their government as economic prosperity deepens, but this is by no means the only avenue of change.
The Chinese decided, for whatever reason, that they wanted this particular plane. Perhaps it observed something that it was not meant to see, and perhaps it was taken simply to demonstrate resolve. In any case, it was taken illegally, and it stresses China's qualities as a rogue nation, inobservant of the rule of law.
I believe that the Bush administration should offer any appology that might cause the release of the hostages; I do not feel that the situation is being handled appropriately. These are Americans and members of the US, and I do not feel that Bush is doing enough to safeguard his own.
To the Chinese, who will not tolerate our "spy" missions, I say return all copies of the plans to the W88 nuclear device which you stole from the US. Your claims that you are the innocent victim of espionage fall upon the deaf ears of the world.
We didn't capture any Russian ships or airplanes in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Russian Missiles were there in Cuba to offset American Missiles in Turkey. The Russian UN and US Ambassitors were asked privately and publicly if there were missiles in Cuba and they said no.
Then it became a poltical game.
Go see Thirteen Days and you might understand better.
The deal is, the evil globalist conspiracy has been plotting for a way to get the US and China to war for decades now. Starting with Korea. When the US and China war, the outcome will be a much lower population (more elbow room to grow), and a strengthened economy (big corps selling lots of bombs).
The efforts have been stepped up in recent years with the Taiwan flap, missiles, National Missile Defense, Missile and Nuclear Weapons technology falling into Chinese hands (war won't do anyone any good if lots and lots of people aren't killed, we proved that with Iraq, we were so overwhelmingly superior, that we couldn't get a clean moral judgement out of a full-on victory, so we have this BS political stalemate. - so China has to have their technological force built up so they are a more even match for the US, to justify the US really thoroughly pounding the commies. this is the final battle, communism's last stand. After this, there will be nothing to stand in the way of global corporatism taking over the entire earth.
The spy plane flap is NOT about the pilots, or about whose fault it is. It's about the Chinese dragging this out long enough to get as many secrets out of that plane as possible.
If you believe that it's at all about figuring whose fault it is and getting an apology, then riddle me this;
why the fuck hasn't anyone looked at the flight recorders from BOTH planes, and figured out exactly who veered into whom?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I've also read speculation that the E3 contained a "magnetic pulse" weapon, which may have been used to "discourage interception" by enemy fighters, and might have been a little TOO effective.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
See?
And WHY wasn't this post the FIRST POST of this whole discussion? It would have been a much more interesting discussion if more people besides just ME read it.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The US owned plane involved in this collision was a spy plane. At the time of the collision, it was at best a military vehicle trespassing in foriegn airspace. Likely, it was invading the privacy of the chinese citizens it was spying on. Had this incident occured over international waters, one could argue that the usual rule of "larger vessels have the right of way" applied and that the operator of the smaller jet operated improperly. Such an argument doesn't apply here because the larger jet should not have been present at all.
If the United States were allowed to place the blame for this crash with China, it would be just like a peeping tom blaming a bad fall on unsafe tree conditions in the yard of the person whom they were peering in on. We don't allow such an argument in civilian space, and we certainly shouldn't allow it in military space. Sure, it is prudent to keep dead branches pruned, but the weak branches would not be an issue if a trespasser were not illegally climbing the tree to perform an illegal invasion of privacy in the first place.
That's interesting that you say "poor showing in the debates", because the Media was painting it as if Bush had won the debates clearly.
Honestly, I was not a big proponent of Gore at first. But I had an opportunity to see how he handled himself while on campus at Microsoft after the April court decision. It was televised on C-Span, and I was amazed at just how well he handled such a delicate and tough situation.
He would have been a far better choice than President-by-default that we have today.
But ohwell.
As far as Corruption in the Clinton administration. This is difficult to say. The majority of all charges that had been thrown up against Clinton failed to stick because they were untrue. But that didn't stop Republicans from continuing to throw charges.
Personally I think there was an ulterior motive, not so much to take down Clinton but as to wipe out the long image of Corruption which had charecterized the Reagan/Bush administration of the past.
As much as one might dislike Clinton for being self-absorbed and corrupt, the Reagan/Bush administrations were far far worse and blatantly public about it.
We even see that today with the new Bush administration, he's rolled over on many issues solely based on who funded his campaign.
Ahh, more Republican lies.
The newspaper looked at the votes, and if they had been counted the way the Republicans wanted them to be, Gore won by 1 vote.
Unfortunately there is a lot more to the story than that.
That's what distinguishes the men from the Canadians.
I think us canadians don't need your type of men.
Besides, we have Jean Chrétien. No diplomat would ever want to face off our premier's wife with her deadly frying pan.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
We're spending billions of dollars (a big chunk of our GDP) on national defense. And we never even use it!
:)
We did use it. The Strategic Defense Inititative (SDI aka Star Wars) finished off the USSR. Their military tried to match it, and spent itself into oblivion. Plus, SDI helped me get through college as well (defense jobs)
So now we've got China to deal with. Funny how we're talking about missile defense again. It worked once....
I'm sorry that a Chinese fighter pilot was outmaneuvered by an American autopilot.
I'm sorry that Taiwan feels so threatened by SEVERAL HUNDRED CHINESE BALLISTIC MISSILES POINTED AT THEM that they want to buy a few Aegis cruisers so they'll have half a prayer of defending themselves. (Time for a variant of the "zero option" that Reagan proposed to the former Soviet Union?)
I'm sorry that China took a wrong left turn last century after America helped bail them out of Imperial Japanese occupation (Flying Tigers volunteers, etc).
I'm sorry that the ICBM technology the Chinese Communist Party bought/stole from America will be rendered largely irrelevant by the antiballistic missile systems we're going to build now that there's a Republican in the White House.
I'm sorry that the Chinese Communist Party lost their investment in the American Democratic Party.
I'm sorry that most of the smart Chinese have hauled ass out of mainland China, or there might be someone left to tell the Chinese government and military how F------ STUPID they look to the rest of the world. "Don't shoot the messenger" really is good advice. And don't send them to labor camps, either.
(Append "NOT!" as appropriate.)
Like the U.S. would be stupid enough to actually let the Chinese even get that close...
--
You gotta get up real early around here if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
I know it's a joke, but I'm gonna use it make a point.
Look at how WW2 pulled us out of the Depression. And look at how much more expensive modern equipment is. More expenses mean more contribution to our economy and our GDP. That means more funding for the military. It's a positive feedback loop.
I hear this all the time -- it's a little disingenuous. To say that war is good for a country's economy is to not count the opportunity cost of all those men and material killed and destroyed by war. It's not as simple as "war is good for an economy".
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Don't get me wrong -- I like idealism, as I'm one myself, only a Libertarian (and libertarian) idealist. I wish I had the answer.
However, the best answer I've ever come up with is "Let people live their lives as they see fit, as long as it doesn't hurt somebody else, and don't let a minority of people gain power over the majority". It won't be perfect, nor pain and anguish-free, but it's the best we've been able to come up with thus far.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Sure, McDonalds pushes to get into other countries, but the McDonalds corporation does not go out and force people at gunpoint to line up outside the Moscow Mickie D's.
The Moscovites were so anxious to throw off the loving, benevolent, fair, friend-of-the-earth, hug-a-bear Communist regime that any form of Western culture they could get their hands on was adopted and adored immediately
I've been to a McDonalds in the heart of Italy. It was just as packed as the one in New York City, and Ronald McDonald was not herding kids at gunpoint into the building to buy Happy Meals.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Not everything's a cultural gesture, Jon. In this case, it's an attempt at using a mixture of threats and actual military force to annex some of the most valuable and heavily traveled sea lanes on earth.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
If by "they're nice" you mean "they appreciate and value the US and wish it no ill will", they have two choices: take steps to remove their current government which patently disagrees with them (good luck!), or defect.
Consenting to an illegitimate or malicious government is a far worse crime than establishing one.
Personally, I'm still waiting for the Chinese to apologize for stealing nuclear weapons technologies or interfering illegally with our electoral process by way of massive financial contributions to a particular political party who shall go unnamed.
Dear Mr. Katz, I'm afraid I don't care to spend too much time critiquing your work any more. I used to get all worked up and interested. "Nations operate like software"??? Oversimplification. "They should get on IRC"??? Do you even use IRC? If so, which channel? I'd love to come and flame you. "Identity economy"? What's that? I don't understand you anymore... -nate
Jon,
I think you are forgetting two issues when dealing with China:
1. China by its historic cultural norms tend to be quite xenophobic. After all, the literal translation of the Chinese phrase for their own country means Middle Kingdom--which means they feel they are the center of the world. And their xenophobia has been enforced by the Mongol invasion, the divviing up of China by the European colonial powers, and the Japanese invasion of World War II. That's why they tend to deal with outsiders suspiciously.
2. China's massive government bureaucracy takes a while to respond to almost anything--especially diplomacy. After all, you are talking a government that needs to rule a population six times that of the USA population. Also, I personally think there is much behind-the-scenes infighting between the Chinese military and the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party on how to resolve this mess. Remember, the Chinese want to hold the Summer Olympic Games in 2008, and this incident is NOT going to help things on the international front.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
The problem with the failure oi diplomacy is that people die in extremely unplesant ways.
If you want the US (300M people) and China (+1,000M people) to slug it out, over an apology, may I suggest an orifice you should apply your lips to.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Was the pilot at least offered political asylum? For it's sure that after that stunt, he'd end up in the G.O.U.L.A.G...
--
Correction. Mc Donald and Watchamacallit records marketing directors are making their damnest to **SHOVE** Madonna & Mc Donald's down the throats of other countries who normally wouldn't give a shit about that. The rest of americans **ONLY** want to have a good time on Saturday night.
--
If I'm not mistaken, Communism is an European invention. And Mao used Communism to better the life of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of peasants. So what is your point?
--
That's because the american media is pro-israeli and is thus able to make public opinion believe that israel is good whilst the arabs are bad. Thus, no anti-israeli politican ever gets elected (they get weeded-out pretty fast) and so, the official US policy is to back israel.
In fact, the arabs are quite stupid in that matter; if they were any intelligent, they'd make peace with the jews, and then, deprived of an ennemy, the jews would kill each other...
--
Words that can only come from a citizen of an imperialist nation. You would not say that if your nation was dominated by another one whose values are quite alien to yours, and forced to follow alien rules.
--
And can you blame them, when in the USA, the pityfully small movie and recording industry demands that the much bigger computer industry includes compulsory copy protection in storage devices, to insure that it's wares aren't fairly used???
--
They also been around for 20 times longer than the U.S.
How about Dubya's plans to open up Alaska for oil drilling?
--
Those 24 people (as well as the one who died) are **SOLDIERS**, who are, by definition **EXPENDABLE**. It's even part of their JOB DESCRIPTION.
And the true face of capitalism wants to send people to jail for copying songs or movies.
--
Note to infonaut : Mongolia used to rule China.
--
Watch this:
Wow!
221 years ***BEFORE*** Jesus H. Fucking Christ (yeah, the dude who got nailed 1968 years ago) !
Beats the shit outta 1776!!!!
--
I didn't know that the FAA had jurisdiction over International airspace, or over Chinese airspace, for that matter...
--
KAL has a long history of having planes straying over soviet airspace. In the late 1970's, a KAL Boeing 707 was shot down over the Soviet-Union and was able to do an emergency landing on a frozen lake. Turns out that it was a gross navigational error where the crew mistook the geographic north pole with the magnetic north pole; the plane turned changed almost 180 near the pole; when they were shot down, they were damn sure they were over Canada...
As for KAL-007 (what a number!), there were american spyplanes in the vicinity when it got shot down.
--
Like, for example, what would happen if Taiwan were to declare their independence? It's no longer outside the realm of possibilities that China could immediately invade Taiwan. The fact that the US has said that we'll defend Taiwan is no longer as big a deterrent as it might have been. And that could mean the lives of US soldiers and sailors, even if not civilians back at home.
That said, the papers you cited are good reading, too, and helps to at least ameliorate any fears of a direct Nuclear confrontation (which I never personally harbored, anyway).
I guess what I'm getting at is that China poses as much a threat now as the Soviet Union used to. That is to say, though they have no intentions of invading us, and they're just as afraid of us as we are of them, they're also convinced that they're right and are willing to fight to the death to protect their interests. I'm just concerned that most of the US isn't sufficiently aware of this, and thinks of China more as a source of cheap electronics and toys than as a true Superpower to be reckoned with.
Here's a funny thought - if the US offered citizenship and amnesty to any Taiwanese citizen that wanted it, what are the odds that we could evacuate most of the people as well as economic and "intellectual" assets to mainland USA before China could take over? ("Ha!", says the Chinese military, "We have captured your evacuated island with a bunch of empty buildings on it! We win!"....)
Just a random thought...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Your sarcasm is a bit misplaced if you consider that to make the analogy work, you need to have the motorcycle rider driving circles around the container truck, trying to force it off of the road...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
but I also happen to realize that a simple "I'm sorry" would have our crew home within hours
What makes you say that? They have yet to actually say our hostages will be released if we say "I'm sorry" (which we have) and admit complete guilt for this incident (which we haven't). They still have yet to come out and officially say what conditions have to be met for the crew to return home. They claim to be doing an official investigation and will not return the crew until it is over.
Finkployd
I stand corrected. Appearently a simple apology WAS all they wanted. If they had just said that and stopped this whole "US must bear full responsibility for collision" garbage this could have been over long ago.
Finkployd
I've heard this several times now, and only question it because we hadn't heard anything about it before. You have to remember that we had full radio communication with this plane until after it had landed, and I'm SURE that the pilot would have said something if he had been forced to land. The pilots own words, however, indicated that he chose that airfield because of its proximity, and nothing else.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
Hmmm build DEFENSIVE systems to use in ATTACKING...
I was using the "1984 speak" that we've all adopted.
Didja ever notice that the War department was renamed the defense department?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
no one was calling China an "enemy" until January 20th,
I disagree. The Chinese leaders have been philosophically opposed to the US for a very long time. They have made every effort to get the upper hand in every way.
You may see this as "the way of the world" but I see it as a country that would very much like to abolish the freedoms that we have in this country.
The Chinese government is as much our enemy as the USSR ever was.
It takes about 5 minutes to target a missile.
My understanding is that the guidance computers in those systems are sufficiently primitive that it requires a substantive effort to reprogram them They are programmed with targets because it is assumed that there would not be time to meaningfully program them in the event of a nuclear war.
they are not being used. So chill out.
Are you familiar with the term "mutually assured destruction?"
A theory of deterrence based on NOT using missiles!
Even if they are not in flight at this time, they are a threat to us.
some of the money we get from our economic ties with them end up in our defense systems The imbalance of trade is such that effectively zero dollars from the Chinese economy goes toward defense, and the entirety of their defense budget is paid by our purchases.
When you buy that cooling fan, or dog's chew toy, or baby stroller, you're effectively giving that money directly to their military so they can build more missles to point at us.
a simple "I'm sorry" would have our crew home within hours,
I'm immediately reminded of Neville Chamberlain:
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe." Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said: "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
You're right. "Sorry China. We're afraid of you and want to kiss up to you in spite of the fact that you blew it." It is a game. We both played by the rules, edging toward the limits of the rules and they fell over the line. When that happens, the one who fell apologizes. Period. Now lets have their apology and be done with it.
After the NATO screw-up, Mr. Clinton apologized like crazy, and this was their response:
"They were so indifferent. They simply said, 'Well, we're sorry.' Then they shrugged their shoulders and walked away," said Li Zhaoxing, China's ambassador to Washington.
It's just not that simple, as much as I'd like it to be that simple. In this case, their desire to save face is conflicting with the need to apologize.
I hope that the crew was really able to destroy the OS and data on the systems on the plane before it was captured.
I want them home, too. My heart goes out to them, but they are players in the big game of international relations, and the other side has captured our pawns.
Stinks to be them.
I'm praying for them.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
So you think War is fun?
Absolutely NOT!
War is awful, brutal, and horrible. War is not like Rambo, and that is abundantly clear.
There are times when it is unavoidable.
I'm not saying that we should go to war with the Chinese. I'm just saying that it offends me to think that the Chinese government should expect us to cowtow to their demands.
We are not to blame for this incident. Our people should be home.
Now.
They need to let them go, and give us our plane back.
FWIW, I don't think that God is a great fan of war, but I think that He knows sometimes you must stand up to evil.
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
normally I don't respond to ACs, but this one emailed me privately after posting this to the discussion, so I thought I'd post my response publicly after sending it directly to him.
> Where do you think our nuke missiles point?
Do you think we have nukes pointed at people who don't have nukes pointed at us? That's the deal. If they spin down their birds, we spin ours down.
> Where do you think a big chunk of OUR tax dollars go into? Military.
As they should. We have lots of interests to protect.
> For what? When's the last time the Chinese had bombed a US Embassy?
When's the last time they stole our nuke sub secrets, or our navy secrets, or our army secrets?
> When's the last time we've bombed THEIR'S?
That was a NATO accident. We were wrong. And we apologized.
> You are naive to think that the US doesn't spy on the Chinese.
> Hell, we consider the recon flight *ROUTINE*.
I never said that we don't. Of course we do. But we do it within the rules of fieldcraft. In this incident, they broke the rules, one of
their people died, and now they are holding our citizens hostage.
> Those weren't US citizens,
Sure they are. you can't be in the military unless you're a citizen.
> those were SOLDIERS on a MILTIARY aircraft,
Right.
> they landed in a country they were SPYING on,
> and they are being DETAINED and treated WELL.
Oh thank you thank you thank you for taking care of our people,
why what do we owe you for providing for the needs of our
people?
They landed in China because they were attacked by a Chinese warplane
and the alternatives were to crash in the ocean and die or land in
China. If China had not attacked a plane over int'l waters doing what
was legal by int'l law to do, they would not be there. Period
> Hostage implies a threat of force, there is none here.
With the Chinese government, there is always the threat of force.
> Hell, what would you do if I stand accross the street from you,
> and watch your wife strip and shower?
1. Close the blinds
2. Call the police and report a "peeping tom"
3. Ask my wife to perform step 1 before her next shower
> I'm not on your property, right? Now what if I
> dropped my binocs over your fence and climbed it to retrieve it?
Then I'd tell you to get off my property, tresspasser.
I might call the police, too. Let's say that you were standing on
stilts outside my fence. What I would NOT do is whack you over the head
from behind so that you fell over my fenceinto my yard, and hold you
under armed guard for an indeterminate period of time until you
apoligized for falling into my yard.
If what we were doing was illegal, what China should have done is
complain to the UN. It was not illegal, so they have no reason to
complain. They need to suck it up and apoligize for whacking us over
the head from behind.
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Give me a break!
Katz' article is a troll.
My post should be modded "YHBT YHL"
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The Chinese government is our enemy.
They have nuclear missles targeted on our cities RIGHT NOW!
They take the monies we pay them to make our kids toys and computer parts and use them to build defensive systems to use in attacking us! The money that flows from US purchases more than funds all of their military infrastructure, in spite of the 18% budget increase given to the military this year.
They have bribed unscrupulous US citizens into stealing military secrets in a campaign of espionage against us.
Just recently they attempted to purchase a building overlooking the Pentagon so they could advance their spy efforts.
This is one of the many reasons that I make every effort to avoid buying Chinese made products.
OF COURSE WE SPY ON THEM!
With respect to this incident, we were flying a slow plane on autopilot over international waters to listen to their emissions.
They were playing chicken with us, and messed up big-time. They collided with us while they were trying to intimidate us, and THEY caused this incident.
They are now holding 24 US citizens hostage, as well as scouring the plane for military secrets, and _WE_ should say "sorry?"
I'm simply incredulous.
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'm sure those people were on the payroll of the NSA, but they are in the military and that's the rules everyone agreed
Why would they be on the payroll of the NSA? They're already paid by the military -- do you really think the US payroll is so bloated we'll voluntarily pay people twice for the same job? These are just pilots and techs, not cryptographers...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Umm, china would completely turn the US into a pile of jell-o almost instantly. in a ground war, they can just give the army hammers and they would wipe out our army in a second or two.
I hope the average chinese infantryman is a damn good swimmer, 'cause that's a long way to go without a strong navy.
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
we had full radio communication with this plane until after it had landed, and I'm SURE that the pilot would have said something if he had been forced to land
Yes, but the "we" in that sentence is the US military command, NOT CNN. So even if "we" heard they were shot at, the white house might not be advertising the fact in hopes of avoiding a full-scale war. Once the US personell get home, I'm sure we'll hear many more details that were forgotten for the sake of diplomacy...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
and the US doesn't?
:)
not as quickly
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You should read some taiwan news report that it is the trick of US spy plane to turn sharply.
Is that like the trick where the guy leans his face into someone else's fist?
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Imagine you're driving down the road and some jerk zooms up behind you. Now if you hit your brakes, you've actually CAUSED the ensuing accident.
In every state of the USA, the person in back is responsible for keeping a safe distance. In your scenario, would the person in front still "cause" the accident if he hit his brakes because a child was in the road?
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I spend hundereds a year on my car insurance. And I have never used it. Maybe it's time for a small accident?
:) "hell, I'm paying for insurance, I might as well leave the doors unlocked in this ghetto and see if I can't get a new car!"
The scary thing is I know people who actually DO that kind of stupid shit!
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
My surprise is that a question about China's MFN status hasn't yet come up in the budget negotiations (or have I just not been paying attention). I certainly wouldn't think of them as acting friendly. At least my friends don't act that way.
.. but this would be in combination with Bangladesh, Pakistan, and either Thailand or Afganistan. I don't really see China as being plausible. Still, it's hard to argue that they wouldn't (don't), though I rate them behind Brasil in probability.
Also: yes. I, too, predict that the most powerful nation will switch during the next century. My best estimate for the most likely contender is Japan, followed by Siberia. Then Europe. India is an outside possibility
But I really feel that this has more to do with internal politics than with anything else. Which doesn't, of course, make it easy to solve.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Was this because it was a game they were playing, or simply because nobody knew how to put it back together?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
One thing no one seems to have mentioned is the black box. Sure the plane didn't crash, but it would have the flight conversations of the pilots. This being the case, surely the tape could be played back to hear the reactions fo the pilots and deduce from that what happened?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
My totally uninformed guess is that "Wrong Way" Wang Wei was attempting a maneuver to disrupt the airflow over the EP-3E's wing. He did this by flying his fighter within feet of the EP-3E, and getting his wing underneath the P-3's wing. This kind of maneuver has been known to throw planes into stalls and spins. For those who aren't clued in at this point, this kind of flying is extremely dangerous and very reckless. Sure enough, the airflow over the EP-3E's wing was disrupted, the wing stalled, and crashed down right on top of Wang's fighter. This would explain why the EP-3E allegedly appeared to make a sudden turn right into Wang's fighter. It also places the blame directly on Wrong Way Wang for flying way too close to the American plane, and attempting a maneuver that was extremely dangerous both to himself and the Americans.
Any aviation experts or ex-fighter-jocks care to confirm or refute this?
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Actually, they're on the payroll of the US Navy. But as they're crew of an electronic reconnaissance aircraft, and some of the crew are cryptographers, I'm sure they work pretty closely with the NSA - that's their area of expertise.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Neville Chamberlain felt exactly the same way. Remember that whole "Peace in our time" schtick?
When was the last time that a bully stopped being a bully because they got what they wanted? You might argue that the United States is a bully, but I'll take US foreign and domestic policy (particularly the latter) over China's any day of the week.
China and the US need have no conversations about airspace. The US has recognized a zone (12 miles, if I remember correctly) which, I believe, is codified in international law. The USSR has always claimed a much larger zone, but nobody else paid any attention to THEM. In any case, holding materiel and uniformed personnel hostage is not the way to get people to apologize to you. It's a great way to start a war, though.
When you get down to the power politics, China needs the US much worse than the US needs China. China would be wise to remember that.
Froma military perspective, China would also be wise to remember what happened the last time an Eastern power decided to get imperialistic in the Pacific ocean. Want to wake up a sleeping tiger? Watch a foreign power try to invade the Phillippines. Or Midway. Or Hawaii. The US will very swiftly mobilize to make that power sorry they woke up that morning. Never get involved in a land war in Asia, sure, but never get involved in an air/sea war with the US Navy. That's a great way to have a very very rough afternoon. The US seaborne conventional forces are the equal of any armed force on Earth, and I don't think China is near foolish enough to try to go nuclear.
Dear God, I hope not anyway...
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"...bankrupt, outmoded practices of the nation-state..."
Obviously, world leaders haven't gotten a copy of Katz's manifesto that says "Hey! We've got an Internet! It's all good now! Beat thy swords into plowshares and love thy neighbor!"
War is part of human nature. Strife is hard-wired. China is itching for a fight. They're eager to demonstrate their power in the Eastern sphere of influence, and they're looking for any even remotely defensible excuse to do it.
Just because we've got the bloody Internet doesn't mean that all the people who think they can profit by upsetting the geopolitical apple cart are just going to start collecting Beanie Babies on ebay. History demonstrates that war is inevitable. Since the dawn of recorded history, all governments (with the possible exception of Tibet) have at one time or another extended their reach through trade and combat. Why is 2001 so different? It's a dangerous world out there, people.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
No way... your Google search clearly collided aggressively with my gratuitous assertion. I demand that you return my lame metaphor immediately.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
There are plenty of rational reasons not to like any president, but with Clinton, and even more so Bush, there seems to be a lot of _hate_. I think Clinton was a corrupt, self-absorbed fool who worried more about his pecker than his country, but I don't _hate_ him. I was perfectly willing to give him credit when he made a decision I thought was good.
After Bush's relatively poor showing in the debates (after which I had a lot of doubts about him, but no doubts about not wanting to see Gore win), I started noticing a lot of ad hominem attacks rather than legitimate criticism. Like Quayle, he's got the "stupid" label put on him and he could solve world peace, the energy crisis and invent a potion of immortality and there are still a lot of people who would say he's stupid.
In Clinton's case, he was just much better at presenting himself, much more smooth and comfortable with public speaking and much more able to speak (and lie) on the fly. I think in many cases in politics, the delivery counts for more than the message.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
You know, you could try Google. That's what "looking it up" means. It appears that I was wrong. It doesn't look like we have a treaty with Taiwan regarding defnese.
i fi ndex.html
Treaties in Force
A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements
of the United States in Force
as of January 1, 2000
http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/t
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/easr98/
an excerpt:
The United States maintains robust but unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan, governed by the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and guided by the three U.S.-PRC joint communiques. We have consistently held that the Taiwan issue is a matter for the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resolve. The United States has an abiding interest that any resolution be peaceful. In accordance with the TRA and consistent with the three U.S.-PRC communiques, the United States sells defensive arms to Taiwan to enable it to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. Our limited arms sales have contributed to maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and to creating an atmosphere conducive to the improvement of cross-Strait relations, including dialogue.
Rick
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Having watched the debates, I would generally concede the first two to Gore, although I have severe philosophical differences with him, so there were many places I think Bush won (as far I was concerned because I agreed with him, and not his presentation, and this is the whole purpose of the debates). By the third debate Bush was hitting his stride and his message was coming through better. Gore was clearly arrogant and seemed peeved at having to sit in the same room with Dubya, but despite wandering off into some seriously dull meanderings, I think he gave a pretty good presentation. The problem with "rating" the debates as to who won or lost, the opinion of the listener matters a lot. If you decided to vote for Bush based on his debate, then he won as far as you're concerned. If you voted for Gore, then he won. The only thing everyone can argue objectively is technique, and whether facts (as opposed to philosophies) are correct.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Hear! Hear! At least there is somebody who understands the situation. It's people like Katz who were "appeasing" Hitler in the late 30's and we all know where that led.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
An apology in diplomatic matters such as these is the same as pleading guilty to a criminal offense. By apologizing, Bush would be proclaiming to the world that the spy plane should not be there in the first place, that the fighter pilot had the right to be buzzing an American plane in international air-space, and that China would have free go to continue such behavior in the future.
Very true, people should realize apologizing in this situation not like saying you are sorry when you bump into someone; which is just common courtesy. But it comes closest to apologizing after a fender bender. Unless you feel that the accident was entirely your fault and are about to agree to have your insurance cover everything you don't start out by apologizing to the other driver because that can be taken as an admission of fault and can be used by them or their lawyer to force you to pay for everything even if it was a situation where both parties were equally at fault, or even a case where the other driver appeared to be at fault.
This type of formal apology carries with it the implication of responsibility and it is by no means clear that the US is primarily responsible for this accident. No apology should be given.
Fighter jets are one seater planes with exception of some two seater planes.
There where 24 people in this plane for which the pilot was responsible for. I don't believe that any of the passangers and crew would of tolerated any 'lessons' being taught at their risk, nor the pilot would of believed he could get away with it.
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
If you can read German, the following article in German news magazine Der Spiegel might be interesting. It's pretty neutral and very insightful, IMHO: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,127191,00.htm l.
It describes among other things how the hardliners on both sides want to increase tension. There seems to be a history of the Chinese making very hasty accusations (without knowing facts) which then cannot be taken back without losing face.
What strikes me most is how little factual information we have. Nonetheless everybody seems to have an opinion...
I'm not familiar with proper pronounciation of pinyin. How do you pronounce Wong? How is it different from Wang? Does this have something to do with the 4 pitches for pronouncing syllables?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I usually don't comment on Jon Katz's stuff -- sometimes he makes good points, sometimes he makes bad ones -- but extending an international incident into the death of globalization is a bit of a reach.
It should be noted, though, that US government servers are currently under attack by chinese hackers. I work for a government contractor, and we've had a couple important (but non-classified) boxes compromised in the past few days. I'm sure that this is just enthusiastic kids in China venting by attacking Evil Uncle Sam, but it's still something to pay attention to.
But regardless of the rhetoric, the diplomatic wrangling, and the internet subterfuge that's going on, *we are not at war*. And if we're able to argue without actual violence -- ignoring network violence, which is not comparable -- that's a *hopeful* omen for future cooperation. By arguing in these ways, we learn about each other, and learn how to stay on each other's good side.
As long as diplomatic relations remain secure between US and China, this incident is a good thing for future globalization. It will prove that although incidents can happen, diplomats will detect the damage, route around it, and learn from the experience.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
The SR-71 is a video reconnaissance aircraft. The EP-71 is an electronic sensor plane, reportedly capable of listening in on ground line phone conversations by reading the EM emmissions. Two very different aircraft, used for very different purposes.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Incidentally, I live in the UK and the UK is probably the strongest ally the US has politically. Not even the UK government or the UK press have given Bush any support.
Huh? I watch the BBC news every night (they broadcast it on PBS in America), and they've been very harsh on the Chinese. According to the BBC, the international community -- Britain included -- are siding with the US.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
You almost have the incident correct, but from what I recall the Soviet MiG was returned in crates, not reassembled.
I don't blame the Chinese for taking apart our aircraft -- it's a windfall for them, let them have fun with whatever we didn't destroy. What I blame them for is trying to shift the blame, and holding our 24 airmen hostage. The latter is unforgivable.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
I personally blame the EP-3's captain for this whole mess. It is true that landing at an airport was a safe choice for the crew, but he should have ditched his aircraft in international waters.
From news reports, the EP-3 had lost its airspeed indicators in the collision. Without airspeed readouts, any attempt to ditch into the ocean would be suicide.
I don't blame the pilot for not sacrificing himself and his 23 men. He made the right choice. I'm amazed that he was able to put the broken thing down on the ground.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Wrong. The US and Taiwan have a treaty that in effect says that if China invade them, we have to go to war with China. We *have* to. Look it up.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
All major countries spy on one another. The Chinese fly the Harbin HZ-5 , a plane whose use is nearly identical to the EP-3 aside from its inferior technology, along the coast of Hawaii.
They're all doing it, they all know they're all doing it. If the Chinese are demanding that the US apologize for spying, they're not only being aggressive but also hypocritical.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
--
tagline
... hi bingo
Don't accuse me of patriotism. I never said anything about the legitimacy of the US government. My comments were directed solely to the "government" of China.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
'Judge not, lest ye be judged'
That is a bullshit cop-out. It should be, "Judge, and prepare to be judged."
Hey, I never said that the US, or any other government for that matter, is legitimate. I merely pointed out that China is controlled by a particularly awful band of brutes.
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
The President of the United States warned that China's continued detention of 24 US Navy personnel "could" harm relations between the two governments. It damned-well should. This is a hostage situation, and our government appears to be primarily concerned about how this might somehow affect US corporate interests. The problem is that the President is thinking about the "government" of China in the wrong terms. The President's problem is likely that when he thinks of the "government" of China, he is thinking, "sovereign". He should be thinking, "thugs."
The "government" of China is no more legitimate than the Gambino crime family . I say this realizing that the comparison is extreme and unfair. The Gambino crime family, of course, has not murdered anywhere near as many people as the "government" of China. I apologize in advance to the Gambino crime family for any offense created by my comparison of them to the "government" of China -- none was intended. However, even though the magnitude of the crimes is, different, I think it is useful to use the familiar concept of organized crime when trying to assess the "government" of China. Organized crime, after all, is what the "government" of China is all about.
In any other situation, how would one characterize a group which seizes control of a geographic area (their "turf"), intimidating not only the inhabitants but also nearby neighbors who refuse to knuckle under? These thugs loot the wealth from the area, under the hollow pretext of "protecting" the victims. It is not primarily the detention of the 24 US Navy personnel that should outrage any decent person (although clearly it should), but the detention, torture and murder of the people of China and Tibet.
The watchword of the day is "diplomacy." Is there no limit to the monsters who can be legitimized by the constant intonation of the word "diplomacy" by those willing to play "make believe." Yasser Arafat . The IRA. The "government" of China. Perhaps if Hitler had lived, we could have simply tarted him up with the gaudy trappings of enough "diplomacy" to give him a legitimacy makeover. The question, of course is, why would we do such a thing? Why would we pretend that any of these people should be treated more like a dignitary than a mass murderer? The only reason I can begin to see is political expediency. This is pragmatism at its worst.
Honesty is still worth something. Murder is still the worst crime one can commit against another. Locking people up and torturing them for expressing their views is wrong. Cultural relativism doesn't bring back the dead or missing. The President should learn to call the "government" of China what it is: criminal.
-Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
There are notible exceptions such as main battle field rifle were the soviet AKs are better because of their renowned durability.
Not quite. The AK's effective range is only around 300m, whereas US Marines must qualify with their service rifle on 500m courses. An AK can, in fact, jam, although you've got to give it lots of abuse. The advantage of the AK for the Soviet economy, and for the Third World, was that it was an extremely cheap rifle to produce and required very little technical skill to maintain.
The US M-16A2 is as reliable as the AK is, surprisingly enough. The abysmal track record of the original M-16 in Vietnam stemmed from the fact that (a) the Army didn't follow the designer's recommendations on ammunition, and (b) the Army didn't procure anywhere near enough cleaning kits. The first led to greatly increased powder fouling, and the second led to the troops believing the M-16 was a self-cleaning rifle, "because otherwise we'd have been issued cleaning kits, right?"
Ranger LRRPs in Vietnam which were issued cleaning kits and took proper care of their weapons reported no significant reliability problems, although there was a lot of grousing about excessive fouling.
Insofar as whichever one is "better"... whichever one you happen to have in your hands when you need it is automatically the best weapon on Earth, because every other weapon is not in your hands, and thus totally worthless.
You and I, right now, can have this conversation. We could stand in front of the White House and point out all of these flaws to everyone that comes by, we can publish articles and books exposing them, and we can work with our elected representatives to try and change the system. In short, we can openly criticize the hell out of the system, as much as we want. Try that in China.
The US is not perfect by a long shot. But since we can talk about and admit our mistakes, we can change them. We had slavery once, but no longer, even though it took a damn long time. I certainly hope that the War on Some Drugs and the ridiculous incarceration route go that way too. But can you imagine the US trying to do, _today_, the sorts of things it did to American Indians in the past, or even to Asian americans in WWII? It would be unthinkable; the public outcry would be tremendous. We're not perfect, but we're learning.
If it were a simple cultural difference, the Chinese could have defused the problem by simply replying "Apology accepted" to the official US expressions of regret. In fact, that would have been the smart play; it would be awkward for the US government to say that it had not, in fact, issued an apology once the Chinese put that label on it.
The fact that they chose not to do so demonstrates that they want a dick-measuring contest or a propaganda chip.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
If you're referring to this incident, there was no issue of holding the pilot hostage -- he was defecting, not being forced down.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Sometimes it's an advantage to be old enough to remember when that happened.
Best Slashdot Co
OK, I'll look it up. Got a link?
Best Slashdot Co
Yes, I know about KAL 007. It was in USSR airspace, and thus liable to shootdown under the "rules". Unfortunately the "rules" did not consider civilian aircraft with bad navigation. Especially civilian aircraft on courses that looked like penetration courses and which looked, on radar, like military recon aircraft. The USSR pilots did get a visual before firing, and knew it was a civilian. But fired anyway. After that, the "rules" changed.
Best Slashdot Co
IIRC (it's been a while since this happened) the 747 had a computer navigation system (or possibly the autopilot?) and it was thought that the pilots had entered the wrong numbers into it. Personally, I don't think that civilian airliners would have been used to test air defense networks, that's what we have e3p aircraft for. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" applies here.
Best Slashdot Co
I'm sorry, but the Chinese have blown this way out of proportion. There was a mid-air accident of unknown origin and they lost a pilot. We lose pilots every month just testing systems like the Osprey.
So what do they do in response? They forcibly imprison 24 of our people. 24 people denied their freedom and separated from their friends, coworkers, and family.
This is the true face of Communism.
----------------------------------
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Look, China doesn't like it that we spy on them, and we don't like it that while spying on them one of their fighters crashed into our spy plane. I don't see it as unreasonable for both parties to apologize for the respective actions. That doesn't mean that either side will stop, nor say anything about my opinion in the matter. If a Japanese fighter smashed into a Chinese spy plane it'd be the same deal.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Oh, ok, it's called "surveillance"...I'll tell that to the raving horde of slashdotters next time an article about government "surveillance" of citezenry comes up. I'll just tell em "there's not a thing in the world wrong with that". Peeping toms should agree too.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
How about *we* apologize for spying, and *they* apologize for crashing a fighter into our spy plane?
Seems fair to me.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Nationalism is outdated, and rather illogical in the first place. And that's what this all boils down to. A few leaders that need to stroke their egos, and the egos of those people still sounding like five-year-old children crying "my country is better than your country".
It's not about honor, like some people suggest. Honor isn't about remaining steadfast and refusing to admit to a mistake at whatever cost.
Both countries made mistakes. The US military was just doing what it loves to do, find any way to push the limits, to get to the edge of what's legal and forget about the intent. That's why the spy planes so close to China's borders. China, on the other hand, sent a pilot who was known to cause trouble, to push things too close, while escorting and harassing the spy plane.
I find these "I'd rather do it my way than the right way" ideas to be downright pathetic. Sadly, they seem to be common. The voters who put people into office here in the US still have this belief that we should be fiercly defending the country, that we should be loyal to the flag no matter what. Therefore we have leaders that also follow such blind nationalism. Heck, it is any wonder that so many people find a piece of cloth more important than the freedoms it's supposed to stand for?
The whole crisis makes me sick. It's a huge game of chicken to satisfy a few male egos, with no regard or concern for what the result is. The real crisis should be for the citizens of both countries, with the realization of how poor and clueless their leaders really are.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
To borrow another analogy, yes, pedestrians have the right of way, but if you hop into the crosswalk directly in front of a bus on a rainy day, you're "dead right" - as in "roadkill".
When it comes to insurance claims for auto accidents - where the goal is to sue the bejeezus out of your opponent in front of a sympathetic jury, your argument works. The consequences of any given mistake are usually a fender-bender, maybe a couple of injuries, once in a while, a fatality, but on balance, the system works.
When it comes to airmanship - where the goal is to not let the mistake happen again, it doesn't. The consequences of screwing up in the air almost always result in the deaths of everyone involved, and Not Letting It Happen Again becomes paramount.
As a society, we tolerate an astonishing amount of clueless behavior on the roads, and we don't train our drivers well enough to understand the consequences of their actions. The same is not true of pilots. (American or Chinese). During peacetime, it's their job not to put themselves, or other aircraft, in harm's way.
You have an interesting idea of responsibility. On road conditions, where your manovering is very limited, your arguement is valid.
This is flying. You're piloting a multimillion dollar aircraft, you're coming up on an aircraft and the distance between you two is decreasing at 500mph. Do you:
A) Fly above or to the sides, in case you mis-judge something.
B) Fly directly behind the craft, in the prop wash, leaving no margin for error.
In a jet cockpit (Yeah yeah "Flight Deck") there is no room for sloppy practices or thinking. The USAF doesn't train the hell out of it's pilots just for the hell of it. They live longer, they kill better, the planes come back.
The Chinese jet pilot was hotdogging. He screwed up. He died.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
War with China means the nukes are probably coming out. Nukes are a likely end state to our civilization. That should be unacceptable to everyone who has the foresight to realize that.
It scares me that there might be a sizeable amount of people in our country who think as you do and continue to blame everything on liberals.
Well, duh. Let me make this as simple as possible: It...Was...Not...Our...Fault. No government is in the habit of apologizing for acts it did not commit. The Chinese military, whether through incompetence or malice, are responsible for this incident. In fact recent reports suggest that the Navy plane may have been fired upon, which would be an act of war by the government you seem determined to kneel before.
I am far from a flag-waving nationalist; I have strongly criticized the US government on many occasions. But this time, the US is right, China is wrong, and it is that simple.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Well, the media had spent weeks portraying Gore as a master statesman and Bush as a buffoon, so when Bush failed to screw up too badly they were naturally surprised. By my scoring the debates were roughly a draw (maybe a slight edge to Bush because of how obnoxious Gore came off), but Bush benefitted a lot from the low expectations.
As far as Corruption in the Clinton administration. This is difficult to say. The majority of all charges that had been thrown up against Clinton failed to stick because they were untrue.
Or they failed to stick because evidence mysteriously vanished, or witnesses refused to testify, or because Congress saw fit to spend time on vital issues like exactly how often he boinked interns rather than irrelevant actions like accepting campaign funds from the Chinese military.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I'm sorry, but what i don't understand about the issue is: Why does it have to be the chinese governments fault? It could only be the chinese governments fault if they specifically ordered the pilot to crash that plane. While this is what might have happened noone is asking them to admit that. So there was a nice way out of the whole thing, by blaming it on the crews of one or both of the planes. But the Chinese decided not to go that way, they saw that by keeping the American crew hostage they could leverage some pressure and decided to play a game of chicken with the US government.
Now they knew that it wouldn't be easy to coax an apology out of the USA. If they applied their own rules it would be virtually impossible, but they also have plenty of foreign affairs analysts who could have told them. The whole thing only makes sense, if the chinese government win something by an apology. Else why risk to loose face by demanding an apology the USA might refuse? Now the Chinese Govt. brought themselves into a position it can't easily back out, but that in itself is no reason for the US to help them out. (The fact that the american crew might want home is, though).
I mean, if we allow argumentation like "Well ok we shouldn't have started it, but now we can't do anything about it anyway, so now it's your turn to offer everyone an easy way out." it'd make things a little too easy to screw oneself out of options and let the other side sort out the diplomatic mess.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
It's a game out there - nobody plays nice if they can get away with it.
Wah!
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Although at the moment it looks like both China and the US are going to be headed for some kind of economic mussle-flexing (like the US Congress revoking MFN status or even setting up a boycott) there is some substantial precedence in the US for going to war under these conditions.
In particular, the Spanish-American War was started by "the sinking of the USS Maine", and then whipped up by the US news media, particularly William Randolph Hearst and the newspapers he owned. Indeed, the differences between a US battleship sitting in a foriegn port and a military airplane flying close to a "hostile" country are very similiar.
One difference between the two is that the people of the United States are not really trying to get a major war started, even though I can see US-China relations potentially going back to policies similar to what they were like before President Nixon. It does concern me, however, that the Chinese government is stiring up support of its own people, to the point that war may be the only option. And most American's won't sit idle and tolerate actions by the Chinese Army like what happened to both Russia and Vietnam, where China and those respective countries bumped up against each other and had a few thousand casualties before they settled their differences.
The economic impact is very real, and right now the company I work for is looking for alternative supplies for parts currently made in China.
Historically spy planes have not been very stealthy. The U2 and the SR-71 were simply high / fast flyers that would evade missiles. Missile attacks obviously suggests being spotted. However these planes were not capable of carrying much load, so they were very costly relative to the amount of information they gathered.
During peace times, however, "reconnaissance" missions can afford to be less defensive, since being shot down would cause an international incident.. Thus these air-ships are loaded to the gills with equipment capturing many orders of magnitude as much info as the simple camera mounted high fliers (which, by the way have been replaced by satilites).
Given that a "spy" insinuates secrecy, a spy-plane or satalites is anything but. Perhaps when the U2 was first invented, there was an element of surprize, but not in the modern day. In fact, I'm not even aware of any modern airplanes that could act in a "spying" mode. The stealth fighters and bomber are hardly suited for effective spying. The former are again too small to do much other than picture taking, and the latter are too big and expensive to risk using for anything other than bombing.
My take is that we've culturally merged the two words, and the net effect is the same.. Gathering intelligence.
-Michael
-Michael
They are still a nation because the US gives them billions of dollars a year
True I suppose, but another element of survival is the friends/contacts you make. However, Israel does have a good infrastructure. Virtually everyone is literate, and I believe most males are required to serve in the military. The other oil bearing Arab nations get plenty of money, yet their military is with mixed capabilities due to many factors.
-Michael
-Michael
A war between nations is incomprable to a scuffle between individuals.
/assert yourself, or are conquored. Standing up to a bully can give you a bloody nose or get suspended from school; possibly altering your future. If you're in a bad part of town, the bully might be a gang with little concern for your life.
I don't see how.. If a neighboring country covets your land, it's not unlike a bully liking your watch. You either defend
And as you allude to the situation in israel, do you think the people there on either side prefer the current state of war to the previous of peace?
What peace ever existed between these nations? Since Israel's inception there have been skirmishes and wars.
And moreso, in the current age, where any large scale war immediately becomes a question of total annihilation, do you really think that desirable?
Well, the cold war potentially saved hundreds of millions of lives (if not billions of lives) since we never -actually- went to war.. It was the mutual respect due to assertiveness and demonstrability of the intention to use force that allowed rational thinking and eventually MAD (mutually assured destruction). If you know you can't win, then there's no point in playing the game.
Likewise, if you've demonstrated to a bully that you can kick his but, and you already know that he's going to ruin your day, then the two of you will not litely engage in squabbles.
Whether or not you agree with the logic, if you are a passifistic government no protected by an aggressive government, then you will be fodder for the "bully countries"; UN or no.
-Michael
-Michael
I agree, but further wanted to add that we were not allowed to apply intelligent warefare against the north. We were limited in the amount of bombing we were allowed to do; We couldn't enter their zones for political reasons.
The problem was that we didn't want to insite the Chinese or Russians. By merely helping defend the south, we were not being agressive. However, If we were determined to take the north, we probably wouldn't have suffered any more than we did, but would have come away with more pride. But this would have been at the expensive of possibly triggering an all out war.
Its sad that so few americans (Im from the UK) actually spend some time learning the full history of the vietnam conflict.
I agree in principle, but would like to argue that almost all "history" is squeezed into 4 yeras of American High School.. Most anything in elementary school is prepreatory / culturally based. History is by no means a requirement in College. In that time, obviously American and European history takes great precidence, and then there's the desire for politics. Finally the rest of the world is grouped together at the whims of a given teacher.
The biggest problem is that very few people actually understand Vietnam.. Even after studying it, I don't really understand it intelligently enough. With people squabbling over the "whys" and results, it's difficult to formulate a "chapter" in American or world history on the subject, as you would World War I or II.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if our shame prevents us from bringing the topic up at all. Children of the 70's and 80's would be taught about the "baby killers", and other such outrages. Being a conservative teacher, it would be difficult to reconsile such topics in class. I recently heard on TV how the Japanese made it illegal to refer to certain massacres they committed during World War II. It's omitted from their text books, etc.
It's not surprising that a 3'rd party would have a larger point of view on the topic of Vietnam.
-Michael
-Michael
And most important, they think the Communist Party is doing a pretty good job, all things considered.
Ever read 1984? The biggest job of a government is to convince its subjects that it's doing a good job. This in and of itself is not a measure of greatness. Not to mention the homogeneity of the Chinese people is in stark contrast with China against virtually any other nation.
England was unable to maintain civility between the Hindu people and the Islamic people. How can anyone believe that in this day and age, the entire world can fall under a single rule of law?
No imperialist power could maintain a stranglehold on the entire world today. It would take the entire Chinese population to act as a police force for the rest of the world (1 in every 4). (Hey, it would get them out of agriculture).
-Michael
-Michael
its 1.2 billion people, 80% of whom are still farmers (compare 2% in developed countries.)
Interesting thought exercize. What happens if more of the Chinese switch from farming to more industrial forms of labor?
Well, one thing definately happens, labor supply goes up and food production goes down. In a free-market economy, this would mean wages would go through the floor while the supply of food deminishes. (cost of food escalates) Thus workers wouldn't be able to earn enough to buy the same foods that they were previously growing... Thus, people would predominantly stick with farming.
In pure communism, theoretically everyone gets paid the same (and only bonuses are applied as incentives), thus the government's role is to employ people so as to best offset the cost of their salary. Well this requires the creation of new industries (even if there isn't sufficient demand). Well, with the decimation of the farming labor, the industrialization of agriculture would have to happen so as to feed everyone. Ok, that might balance, but now what about the actual industrialization. Surely the Chinese would require massive imports (as any other modern nation). Which means they'd have to export something valuable. But now we enter the realm of free-markets; something Communism doesn't work well with. One need only look at Russia to see how industry plagued with communisitic innefficiencies can stiffle development.
I'm not personally worried about China dominating the world economy (and thereby positioning itself for world domination).
If China grows more powerful, it will be due to some natural phenomina, not just a beurocratic manipulation of vast land and labor resources. There is no such thing as Utopia; in any system, there are resistive feed-backs that will prevent perpetual growth.
Additionally, I do not believe China would benifit from war. Any major nation that they might come to war with would incite world war III. If it leads to nuclear war, then everyone dies, and obviously nobody wins. If everyone sticks to traditional warfare, then the only advantage China has is manpower (essentially as Russia had durring WW II). It is unlikely that they could mount a sea attack against the US, since they'd have to ferry troops on ships which could easily be sunk. Thus they'd be more advantaged to attack Asian nations. Which ultimately means either Europe or Russia. But attacking Russia would probably mean facing all major world powers. And at that point, they're outnumbered at least 1.1 to one.
If they found Russia to be an ally, then they'd possibly succeed, but that's a whole new problem.
-Michael
Explain why the US Government was so reluctant to join the war earlier then?
Did ANYBODY watch the Transformers Generation 2 series? It was, after all modeled after the Americans in WW2. The Quntisons were a "peaceful" race. At least in the sence that they never fought. Sure they had gladitory areans for foreigners, but that's just an ancient form of boxing right?
Anyway, the point is that we were well into the war before a single American died. Our industry and exports were _enormous_ due to the sale of arms to European Allies. We were supplying the Chinese with airplanes, the British with tanks and guns, while at the same time, building our own infrastructure.
It wasn't the war that empowered us, it was the demand for industrial products that spawned exports and full employment.
Given this view, it should make sence WHY we wanted to stay out of it. We had everything to gain. Allow the Europeans to decimate their natural resources, and man-power, while staying safe in our natural barrier; getting richer all the while. By the time we joined the war, any remaining unemployment was obsorbed through a dramatic population reduction.
The idea that war itself invigorates the economy is misleading. In the "Battle tech" saga, war-torn lands had their factories distroyed regularly, their raw minerals either consumed, or destoryed (due to scored earth policies), their brightest minds assasinated, their bravest men slaughtered. When all is said and done, all that is left are the cowards that knew to run and hide, and the small time farmers.. Essentially, a giant leap backwards. You might proclaim "innovation", but if your experimental factories are constantly being destroyed and every penny you have is being devoted towards basic guns, you simply don't have the resources to devote towards experimentation.
Again, the only reason WWII provided such innovation was because research was able to be carried on in remote, protected regions. Germany quickly established a safe inner land, and the US mainland obviously was never touched. It would be rather difficult to hold large experiments in the often bombed british isles, especially with much of their money going to the US and other nations.
-Michael
-Michael
That being said, war sucks and should be avoided- because they can be no winners.
Not true. The best way to handle a bully is to stand up to them.. Otherwise they'll walk all over you.. Best advice you can give a geek: Be willing to take a few bruises, since the Bully will think twice before harrasing you (since there's now a cost to each encounter).
If a nation simply appeases at each standoff, then the smaller wolves will gain some bravery. Look at Israel and it's neighbors.. They've gone to war numerous times to assert themselves in the bullied area. Sure they don't play nicely either, but they're still here as a nation because they have the means and the resolve to confront bullies.
In fact, it's very natural to war. Those passive animals that only flee don't get the water hole when times are bad, and eventually die off.
-Michael
-Michael
that the economic/trade impact of this entire stand-off will probably over-rule anything else. It'll be something stupid like "here's your people, but we blew-up your plane"... now, about the trade agreement.....
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
(3) the fallout this will have on Favored Nations trading status for China. The Congress could still wimp out and give MFN again, but I'm hoping they'll stop kowtowing to the Great Bear here.
1. There is no "giving MFN again" anymore. Under Clinton, China was granted Permenant Normal Trading Relations. There is no more annual vote in congress.
2. The "Great Bear" is Russia, not China. China is (if you care to make such references) the Dragon.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Does a supersonic jet "Mach 2.20 at 36,090 ft" get kicked out of the air by a slow "Maximum speed at 15,000 ft 380 knots true air speed" P3?
Seems as if the Chinese pilot was a little close for this to happen. For the accident to happen the Chinese pilot had to be closer then 1 second "normal reaction time" this would put him within 640 feet or less then 1/8 mile. He could have avoided the accident otherwise.
Note this still requires the P3 to have a absolute change in velocity to the direction of the Chinese jet in less then 1 second, so he was allot closer then the 1/8 mile.
Get a free ipod.
An unarmed US prop plane destroys a slightly-less-than-state-of-the-art yet armed-to-the-teeth and kick-ass-in-its-own-right Chinese military jet. That same prop plane lands on Chinese soil and (I assume) all that tasty spy gear has been destroyed and the crew more-or-less unharmed (sorry, I'm having a hyphen problem today).
Now, if one of our Tomcats was knocked down by a Chinese propeller plane, you can rest assured that the Pentagon would be called on the carpet. The press would have a field day. Heads would roll.
Now, if I remember my Asian psychology correctly, multiply the above paragraph by 100. the Chinese military is gonna be insane. Big Loss of Prestiege by people who are not used to eating crow. They don't have to justify anything to the West, they have to recover whatever face they can for their own survival.
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
80% of those people are still farmers, will remain farmers, will never have a higher quality of life, and will never care because of ignorance.
You really love your fellow man, don't you?
Nothing is good about Communism.
Nothing is good about the Democrats or Replubicans, either...
The world won't ever be free until we're all Libertarian and can truely care about peace and goodwill without having to fall back on pitiful excuses such as God, Country, or Self-Interest.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Interesting=2, Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=4
What that means is that only 1/4th of the people who moderated this post realized it was meant to be a joke.
Either that or 3 of the 4 moderators are Chinese, which sort of does figure in with world population numbers.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I find this whole incident hilarious, yes, you read that correctly, HILARIOUS
Mommy! China wrecked my spy plane! Make them say they're sorry!
Mommy! US crashed our plane and killed the pilot! Make them say they're sorry!
Really, no one should be apologizing to anyone here! China should give our plane back, and the crew and be done with it. They should have done this from day one and this story never would have made it to press.
I heard a DJ make an interesting comment this morning. He said something about how the Chinese were just stalling so they could check out our spy plane, and when they are done they won't care about apologizing, they'll just give the plane back. He then went on to say that he was more worried about the crew than the plane. Well, to tell the truth, I'm more worried about that plane than the crew. I think our crew will be returned unharmed. If they aren't then China will have a lot of trouble and not just from the US. The plane on the other hand, is fair game. It poses a national security threat. Who knows what kind of technology is on that thing.
Sorry, this was meant to be a rant, not a troll.
Let's count how many ways you're wrong.
1. Both the U.S. and China recognize 12 miles as being the limit to territorial waters.
2. The plane is not spying. It is a marked U.S. military plane monitoring electronic signals over international water. Nothing spying there.
3. They fly in a loop and anyway if they do this then China should know it and anticipate it.
4. The Chinese refused to allow the U.S. to help rescue the pilot. It is possible he is still alive and being used for PR purposes. And the 24 members of the Navy are not spies. They were in international space in a marked Navy plane, and are all uniformed. Therefore nothing near being a spy.
5. All media distort facts.
6. They kidnapped 24 U.S. citizens. I don't know exactly what treaties they have signed, but they are morally wrong.
7. This is why we need to force the Chinese to give up. I doubt they would risk, war, international sanctions or anything like that if they refuse to released the kidnapped Americans.
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
I don't think this is necessarily about the cultural requirement for the apology, but instead China attempting to get the US to back off of supporting Taiwan.
By apologizing, the US would be admitting that the air space they were in was Chinese and not International. The US would be admitting that the plane was in a place it shouldn't have and didn't act in the professional and proscribed manner of international law.
The US isn't going to admit doing anything wrong, because technically the plane was doing what it was supposed to be doing in a place that it technically was allowed to be doing it. The Chinese actually broke international law in boarding the plane... but then again, they made an emergency landing.
The Chinese want exert wrongdoing onto the US, and hence pressure the US into taking less of a position with Taiwan, human rights, WTO, etc. Putting the US into this position would increase the Chinese's chance of lightening the US position on these issues.
Now from a conservative stance. They are communist. The whole execution thing still applies as does the penal code. Fifteen years for jaywalking in a military run prison is overkill. Religion is outlawed. Look what they did to all the Buddhists and Catholics. What about their actions against Taiwan? Why not just go talk to Harry Wu about his experiences in China? Harry Wu. Conservative or Liberal, China is a threat to our Constitutional Republic and all the world's FREE democracies.
The state is hyperreal -- it operates like software. It seems stable enough while the power is on and it hasn't run into any major bugs, but interrupt the power supply or corrupt it, and the state falls apart.
This is probably the worst analogy I've heard in a while. You don't have to mention 'software' or 'linux' to get geeks to understand something that's outside those realms. Don't try to make everything fit into those categories.
Software is a set of instructions, and the machine follows those instructions. Politics and sovereign diplomacy are comprised of thousands or millions of different people who each have their own agendas. If you pull the plug on a computer, it STOPS. If you corrupt a government, it STILL has thousands or millions of different people who each have their own agendas; the agendas are just that much more recklessly out of tune.
[
Thanks on the correction re: symbols.
As for MFN, I thought that was on the block but barely missed-- I had heard discussions that some in Congress were quite relieved that we left it at annual review in face of this. Got a link? Always glad to be corrected.
[
"The US plane was in international airspace on autopilot"
Perhaps from an American point of view. As far as the Chinese are concerned, that is their airspace, and the Americans are only allowed to fly there until the Chinese finally take back Taiwan and all the ocean inbetween. Things are not as black and white as your silly little mind would like them to be.
Katz presents a vision of the standoff that is far too simple. Given, the standoff is not the only point of the article, but there is enough involved for it to be a pain in the ass.
The Chinese want more than a simple apology from the US in order to free the crew of the American plane. They also want the US to end all flights off the coast of China, specifically in the South China sea, beyond that, all flights around Taiwan.
Demands like this are presented on behalf of the Chinese military, which has been growing in power as the Chinese grow dissatisfied with their opressive, corrupt, and generally worlthless unelected leaders. China's military also wants to "take back" Taiwan. If they can get the US to apoligize for activities relating to US espionage off the China coast, they get a great power boost. If they can use it to forward their machinations against Taiwan, all the better. While military subversion of the Chinese government might be good at breaking down their terribly mismanaged communist system, a military government in China might be even worse.
Jiang Zemin and his corhorts, of course, see this and must stand up and make simlar demands, so that they are not seen as an enemy of the military, and so that the military can not say that he is backing down to the US like he was percieved to have done when the US accidentally bombed a Chinese embassy in the balkan conflicts.
Last of all, comes the US. Our leaders muyst show a strong front against the Chinese, so that we can continue to support the Taiwanese. Taiwan is an invaluable trade partner, and if China were to conquer Taiwan, it would drastically raise prices on many goods, especailly compter parts, that come into the US. Such things would have a disasterous affect on the US economy given its present shaken state. It would also lead to a terrible loss of life for the Taiwanese, many of whom would resist a Chinese takeoever to their deaths.
So what it all comes down to is far more than a simple apology for a midair accident. In the greater scheme of things, the lives of the airmen involved mean nothing. What matters here is the freedom, wealth, and lives of billions of people, Chinese, Taiwanese, and Americans.
He did? I thought Mao used Communism to force tens of millions of people from the cities into the countryside, where they died like flies. Oh yeah, and to consolidate the absolute power of him & his Communist cronies over the entire country.
Too bad that most of the major powers who label themselves "Communist" don't even remotely resemble the utopias envisioned in the texts where that label originated...
That is exactly the cultural difference. In U.S. culture apology is an admission of wrongdoing to some extent but in chinese culture it is more of a polite formality in case of a mishappening. U.S. could at least say that they feel sorry instead of regretting the incident..
The problem with this whole issue is that Americans want to rule the world by being friends with everyone while the Chinese know that the real way to rule is to manipulate people and maintain opressive control
It's obvious that we don't want to rule the world. How's that you say? Japan still exists as a country, as does Germany and Italy. We could have been like the Soviets and just not left after WWII. We could have annexed Japan and most of western europe if we were truly an expanionist country.
Do the same to any Chinese military crafts near the US air border.
Send an empty aircraft on autopilot, crash with it. Kill the pilot. And ask the Chinese government to claim total responsibility for the "death" of a non-existent US pilot.
Apologizing once can bring up so many opportunities. Think about it.
In this postmodern|global|technocentric|connected|whatever age that we live in, there is a notion that changes in the manner in which people communicate as well as changes in commerce are eroding the traditional roles of nation-states. Katz is arguing the opposite: that states are becoming hyperreal. Take that word literally. Physical barriers to identity (borders, geography, sheer distance) are becoming irrelevant. The reaction to this is to boost the nation-state's role as the bounding entity of identity and ideology.
Katz thinks that the current crisis with China illustrates this. The idea is that the crux of the crisis are two conflicting cultural imperatives (China: You must apologize. U.S.: Never say sorry.) And, just like that, "real" (read: pragmatic) considerations are demoted.
Now, given that, 1) this is about apologies. Note that, depending on what point you're trying to make, what this is about will vary. "Political manoevering to use as a bargaining chip in any forthcoming negotiations?" Maybe. Without any supporting statements, it's not a very useful statement. 2) Right, the internet will not democratize China. It also won't revolutionize grassroots activism. It won't decentralize government. It won't create an enlightened, vibrant mass culture. It won't make shopping easier than ever before. It won't make me rich. But none of those points were Katz's point in this article.
You hit on chinas big problem breifly: it has no money.
None at all. Some overwhelming majority of china is in poverty. The majority of china is agrarian.
Later you say that its "unlikely" for china to launch a sea attack against the US ? They can't launch a sea attack against taiwan!! China has been holding its cards forever w.r.t. taiwan because they know there is a good chance of them giving it their all and not succeeding. Then how do they look ? If china can't even handle taiwan, then chinas legitimacy as anything more than a big farm goes out the door immediately.
At the same time, they can't afford to _not_ make a lot of noise towards taiwan.. else they seem powerless.
China has the military capability to make life in taiwan really shitty for a while, but not to launch a full scale successful amphibious assault. amphibious assult needs lots and lots of people (chinas got that), lots and lots of special equipment (china probably doesn't ahve that). Taiwan is by default in the strong position. _Especially_ since taiwan is _made_ of money and can buy all the national defense they want!!
There is absolutely no capacity for china to launch a relevant assault against the US. The only risk is a long range nuclear strike, and even then, the biggest fear is that they've figured out the technology stolen from US labs and how to use it on their aging fleet of sovet-era military hardware.
as far as your interesting thought excercize...
only a few of the "asian tigers" have been able to successfully turn from agrarian poverty stricken societies into relevant economies. S korea, taiwan, and perhaps malaysia. S korea was able to do so with debt financed capital and controlling governments. Taiwan was able to do so with precisely controlled elections and intelligent fiscal policy. Malaysia was able to do so iirc with its lucky supply of relevant natural resources.
If you look at china on the otherhand, historically the largest scale national works projects have been water control. The national mobilization of the people to a specific aim you see in other (smaller) asian nations has not really been acheived in china to any other aim besides keeping millinos of people from dying from yearly flooding. The way you farm today is largely unchanged from the way you farmed 4000 years ago.
Additionally, in S Korea, taiwan, and malaysia you've got governments who's only real means towards legitimacy was a cocktail of economic growth and psuedo government tranquility. Apart from mongol rule (who were shortly assimilated into chinese culture anyway) and breif british colonialism, china has been a soverign nation for thousands of years. The current regime does not seem to have evolved out of the "we must suppress the people to remain legitimate" fallacy that in effect stifles all societal progress. Only with careful use of policing the poeple offset by measurable GDP gains have the other asian nations been able to grow GDP and bridge into modern society.
Until the majority of chinas labor force isn't concentrated on feeding chinas labor force, dont expect much from china in terms of international power.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
First, software doesn't adapt itself and change without reprogramming. Software doesn't have to make decisions that it's not programmed to process.
Ultimately, software is binary and cannot craft solutions that incorporate the tremendous variety of influences that human beings (yes, Virginia, the State Department is still run by humans) have to deal with every day.
Is China "crashing" right now? Is the US "buggy" right now over this spy plane issue? No. They're both acting in their own self-interests.
China wants to roll back US spying to the degree that it can. It wants to extend its own terrority further into international waters wherever possible. It wants to keep US hubris in check and show that it means business in defending its own interests.
The US wants to continue the tradition of spying from international waters. It wants to maintain existing definitions of territory. It wants to show China that it sees changes in the status quo as aggressive moves.
Note to Katz: go to Mongolia. Don't bring any techno-gizmos at all. Remain unwired for a month. Watch the traders and tribesmen. See how they interact. Come back and report to Slashdot with your observations. Do not use any words that include the following: hyper, techno, uber, ultra, quasi, multi, digital, electronic, net, or web.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Case in point: the Korean War.
The US put out a list of nations it would defend with force against Communist attack. South Korea was not on that list. China and North Korea took this as tacit understanding that South Korea was not an area the US was willing to spill blood over.
The result is pretty well-known, even to today's undereducated American populace. North Korea attacked, the Korean War was started, the US and many other countries lost a lot of men and women in a contest that could have been avoided had the US communicated its intentions better.
Language is extremely powerful, and in the diplomatic arena those who don't wield it well are doomed to failure. To think of these words being exchanged as "mere posturing" is to expose a fundamental misunderstanding about how humans interact. Communicate weakness, and that perceived weakness will be acted upon. Communicate strength, and that perceived strength will be acted upon.
I'd certainly rather have a harsh exchange of words, a lot of tension, and ultimately a resolution that doesn't weaken America's position with China than an immediate backing down and apology for something that doesn't deserve it. The Chinese would certainly see such an apology as an admission by the US that when bullied, we'll acquiesce.
An apology over a downed plane is far from a Chamberlain-style cave-in, but not as far as we might think.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It seems to me the China can only win here. They KNOW that any U.S. president who got elected to office owes U.S. corporations BIG TIME, and in knowing this, they know that Nike and all of the other corporations that manufacture over there, DO NOT WANT TO MOVE. That would hurt their bottom line and screw up their production schedules.
I truly don't think that China benefits much from U.S. corporations manufacturing over there. It's the corporations that benefit the most.
Say nothing of the fact that they still have our guys and gals over there.
Since China knows this, and they know that the corporations would pressure Bush to do whatever it takes, I suspect at the end of the day we will be apologizing.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
that the U.S. should just ask the Chinese to let a neutral 3rd party investigate and lay blame on the responsible party if they can find one.
IHO the Chinese will never agree, the chinese military are self evidently trying evade their responsibility for this. Detaining the US pilots is all about witholding their evidence/accounts than directly blackmail the US into accepting responsibility.
Everybody knows they WILL be released eventually.
First, since we have neither talked to our crewmen nor examined our airplane, we cannot know who was at fault. It would be inappropriate to apologise in such a situation.
Second, this is not about egos. It isn't about detainees. Let's call these guys what they are - hostages. China is holding our servicemen and women hostage. And for what?
Third, we were operating in international airspace. Notice the bolded word in that sentence - international. If you catch a spy inside your country, you can jail or expel him. However, it's a commonly accepted practice to spy on countries from outside their borders. There's nothing wrong with it!
Fourth, you don't use a semi-truck to knock a Porsche off the road. Similarly, to think that our klunky, large P3 (the semi) would run into their highly maneuverable, high-speed fighter jet (the Porsche) is ridiculous. There are reports that their fighter jet came to within three feet of our plane twice before the two collided.
Fifth, there's no reason to think that the Chinese will willingly and safely return our men and women, were we to offer some sort of ludicrious apology. Anyone who thinks China is our ally hasn't been paying attention.
You people who get your news from CNN or the major networks need to retune your TV sets and web browsers to FOX News Channel.
US: O Chinese government, we apologize.
CHINA: It is a good apology. But we have decided that the apology is not enough. Next you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring! [dramatic chord]
steveha (apologies to Monty Python)
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Uh ... No.
KAL 007's flight path ran from Seoul up to Anchorage and the pilots had (probably unofficial) permission/encouragement to edge over the line into Soviet airspace. IIRC, the USSR warned the planes on more than one occaision, and when the warnings were ignored, decided to take a stand and fire.
There were (to the best of my recollection) unsubstantiated claims by the Soviets that KAL 007's planes had spy-gear on them.
I recall this because I've flown on that flight, on that route, about a year before the flight that was shot down.
Ouch! Not to bright in the first place was he?
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Nothing could be futher from the truth. China is a xenophobic, imperialist, racist nation. Only the most xenophobic people on earth could have come up with the Great Wall of China. China has always shunned the outside world, even when the ideas from the outside world would better their society. That is why the nation that 1000 years ago was the greatest nation on earth no longer is the greatest nation on earth. They cannot learn from the outside world.
The USA, on the other hand, is a melting pot of people's and ideas from all over the globe. That is why America is the greatest nation on earth today. And while it will remain such for a while still.
America did not send a spy plane over China. It sent one into international airspace outside China. China would do the same if it had the technical capabilities to do so.
I am getting really angered at the american peoples overriding desire to support everyone in the world. If you are so damn supportive of the chinese you should move your butts over there and start working in thier factories. 14 hours a day for a few bowls of rice will teach you how bad you had it living in the terrible United States of American.
Yes this is a troll but you just get pissed of reading post after post saying "America should just apologize and get it over with." and "America is obviously wrong because they are bigger." and "Why is the US govt being so MEAN to the chinise."
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
There are rules as to how interceptions of aircraft are to be conducted. These rules are part of the ICAO treaty (International Civil Aeronautics Organization) China has signed this treaty. It is the responsibility of the intercepting aircraft (the Chinese fighters) to stay clear of the intercepted aircraft (the Navy plane) Also flying two aircraft in close vertical proximity is extremely dangerous due to the the interrelated aerodynamic forces (THEY GET SUCKED TOGETHER AND COLLIDE!) Once again, it is the responsibility of the interceptor to stay clear of the intercepted.
China has nukes. That might not be the technical term of 'superpower,' but they can carve large bloody chunks out of the US of A just the same.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
"3. International law and treaty (which China is a party to) hold that ALL nations have an obligation to give safe harbor and lend assistance to a disabled aircraft. Back in the 1980's, a Soviet spy plane had trouble and was allowed to land in Alaska. After it was repaired, the crew was allowed to leave, completely unmollested."
Turns out this only applies to civilian planes. Military planes are SOL.
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Ring... Ring...
...well.. you seen one of our pilots, he was flying a plane near your border, and well... he got into a little scuffle with one of your fighter pilots.. just a little ... scuffle..
.. and you see our plane hit your plane, and your pilot seems to have crashed into the ocean, and our plane landed on your Island...
... now wait Jiang... hear me out now...
... listen Jiang... this isn't the time to be getting hysterical about a thing like this..
.. Look, I'm just calling to tell you something terrible has happened and ...
.. well of course I like to say hello.
.. not just now, but anytime Jiang.. it's just that now something terrible has happend and...
.. well you see, we want to give your air defense the flight path of our plane, so we can help you find the plane on that island of yours..
.. well yes I know they're our boys..
.. Yes, well I'm sorry...
.. of course I'm sorry...
... well, how do you think I feel about this...
... So you're sorry and I'm sorry... ok...
... we're both sorry...
GW: Hello Jiang, this is George... yes George Bush, President of the United States.
GW: Listen Jiang, would you mind terribly, turning down the music a little..
GW: Thanks... there.. that's better..
GW: How are you Jiang...
GW: Fine... Yes I'm fine too...
GW: So you're fine and I'm fine...
GW: Yes I agree... it's great to be fine..
GW: Now Jiang.. the reason for my call...
GW:
GW:
GW:
GW:
GW:
GW:
GW:
GW:
GW: Ok so who do we have to call.... yes.. the People's Central Air Defence Headquarters...
GW: Yes and where are they? In Shanghai.. ok
GW:
GW: Listen Jiang, you'll call them first will you.
GW:
Gw:
GW:
GW: Of course I'm sorry..
GW: Well, don't say that you're more sorry, cause I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are..
GW:
GW:
Up to this point, we(the US) have been uttering statements of "regret", with translates to "yihan" in Chinese, with is nowhere near a statement of apology, nor regret. They have been urging for a "dao quin", or a verbal kow tow. "dao quin" means "to say sorry". If Bush knew someone who was fluent in Chinese, he might try "bao quin" or "to hold sorry". It's more of a reflection of regret in Chinese, but none of the face-losing reverberations of a "dao quin".
Couldn't Bush just trade that EP-3 with China for Jon Katz? I'm sure the international community would approve that move. Send him in a work camp!
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
All very well, but if the tables were turned, what would have happened?
What would the USA do if the chinese kept flying planes up the cost of California, just outside the territorial boundaries? What would they do if one of these planes came down at an American air-base?
That being said, the Chinese should have released the air crew within 24 hours, and I would assume (hope?) that they would have destroyed any codes or sensitive data before allowing anyone on board.
At absolute best(giving every benefit of every doubt) it was a poorly phrased attempt at satire or political commentary.
/., as such a humorous (controversial?) post obviously deserves to be at +5 (just witness the 30+ replies).
Ah, yes, the usual excuse. Huge numbers of people are taking the post seriously, not realizing it's a joke. Then at some point, everyone realizes it's a joke. Well, they can't admit they're stupid. So instead, they all say, "oh, well, it's a BAD joke.".
Now you're saying Jonathan Swift wouldn't deserve to be at +4, but rather, -1. Other people who are just starting to get the joke are saying "oh, well, Swift was funny, I KNEW that was satire" (because they were told it was satire in Lit class). And of course, there is the large contingent that will never realize it was a joke, because they fire off their stupid, knee-jerk, stereotypical anti-American responses (oh you Americans are all the same, at least all us non-Americans are all different-- "we're all different!" "I'm not"), and then move on to bitch about the next article that actually has the nerve to be about some neat bit of technology rather than an AIDS cure.
As for the original post being +4, and all of these staying in the 2 or lower dungeon-- it appears the mod system is the LEAST broken thing about
Maybe I'm just the eternal optimist, but I think that a lot of the "insightful" mods were done in the mood of the post-- i.e., in keeping with the satire. If you're about to read a bit of satire, and right at the top it says "THIS IS SATIRE", it's not very funny. However, if you go into it reading it as "+5, Insightful", it's really funny.
Am I giving the moderators too much credit? I'd prefer to isolate the stupid people to just the flamebait mods, it'd keep my world view a bit higher.
On a side note-- I see Overrated mods all over, but I've never once Metamodded one. What's the deal?
Oh, and don't forget the power that the Chinese now have over the AEgis destroyer arms deal with Taiwan.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
So does China not abide by international law? And what if the fighter had not crashed? Would China still be requested an apology from the United States for flying in their "200 mile" airspace? I think not.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
That being said, war sucks and should be avoided- because they can be no winners.
And as you allude to the situation in israel, do you think the people there on either side prefer the current state of war to the previous of peace?
And moreso, in the current age, where any large scale war immediately becomes a question of total annihilation, do you really think that desirable?
How can you expect truth from the media that consistently fails to mention US-sponsored atrocities around the world, including the CIA-trained death squads in South America in the 70s?
If China is really preparing for war then why are the western nations so eagerly handing them money to fund it?
Don't bother. Despite the posturing on Slashdot, the average American is far more likely to believe the US press because they have been fooled into believing it's 'free'. A Chinese person will be less likely to believe their press because they know it's not.
I didn't claim to be a genius, just too cynical to believe what the newspapers say.
Because I don't just believe what I read in the newspapers. Try here for a starting point.
Sorry Jon, but I'm not sure you can call this an obvious accident. The US has been leaking information that leads us to believe that the Chinese escorts were dive bombing around it, while the Chinese are saying that the large, propeller driven plane suddenly swerved into the Chinese fighter jets. Until we actually know what happened, this whole thing is an exercise in diplomacy.
It's hard to assess blame in an unknown situation by those who are not intimate with the details.
I would have thought that it would be harder to compare International Politics to software, but I guess that's possible. :)
No, no, no. The pilot's name is 'Wang Wei' (as in Wrong Way in case some of you have yet to have the caffeine kick in) which is even worse.
BigCat79
BigCat79
"The dead have risen and are voting Republican!" --Bart Simpson
- U-2s are spy planes
- SR-71s are spy planes
P-3s are NOT spy planes. They're Patrol aircraft, designed for long-time loitering over water looking for submarines. This one had been fitted with radio receivers so that it could record transmissions. If anything, it could be called a surveillance plane, but not a spy plane.Say that the average family is two parents and three kids.
That means that there are 1.2 billion families in the world (assume 6 billion people).
Give each family a half-acre lot to have a house on. That's 600 million acres. According to this link1 acre = 0.0015625 sqare miles, so that 600 million acres is equal to 937.5 thousand square miles, or an area equal to a square 968 miles on a side. It could fit comfortably in the midwest United States.
That's every person in the world, living in a comfortable half-arce lot subdivision. Not crammed into a two-room apartment like sardines.
Now, about that overpopulation problem: where is it?
Well, thats what we're saying. If you read a Chinese Newspaper, they say very different things. The Chinese state that we were in their airspace, and that we made a sharp turn off course to hit their plane.
If you buy what our people are saying, we appear to be in the right. If the Chinese are telling the truth, obviously we owe them an apology.
I find both stories somewhat hard to believe. Do you really think we would be on autopilot flying so close to another plane? I find that very hard to believe. Likewise the pilot of the Chinese plane was said to be a daredevil who frequently performed stunts of various sorts to rile foreign pilots.
The likely story - both sides were playing a dangerous game of chicken in the air and collided. That's something that is embarassing to both sides, and I don't expect either to admit it.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Ummm, honey, in a word, NO. First, the US plane was in International airspace, not Chinese. So, I suppose that the US does not have a right to fly in International airspace? Secondly, the Chinese have spyplanes which do the same exact mission, except that little fact isn't reported by the media. Third, the intent of the spyplane was to intercept communications. If the Chinese (or anyone) else doesn't want their communications which can be intercepted by planes in International airspace then the Chinese should invest in encryption technologies, shouldn't they?
Also, the penis does not unite cultures. I'm doubting that this crisis is being perpetuated by "male egos". This is a clash of East/West political realities.
This is another view of the world.
2. The plane is not spying. It is a marked U.S. military plane monitoring electronic signals over international water. Nothing spying there.
The hell they weren't spying. It was an electronic surveillance job... that plane was doing something like sniffing out Chinese air-search radars, so we could learn to defeat them better. Of listening for encoded military transmissions, so we could crack 'em and learn what the Chinese are up to. It's spying for sure, even if it is called "surveillance." We do the same kind of stuff from satellites. The Rhyolite SIGINT spy bird has some gigantic antenna array, and it can suck up a lot of transmissions from the target area.
That said I agree with the rest of your post. We WERE spying, but it was being done in a legal fashion, and I regard our crew as hostages now too.
... is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, one of the mainstream journalists who "gets" the big picture of the internet and always has. Read his column today for a more balanced view of the motivations behind the current standoff.
"Luck is the residue of design" --Branch Rickey
Maybe our government is lying to us. Maybe we really were at fault. Maybe we invaded China. Maybe the two governments just fabricated this story to create a stronger sense of nationalism. Maybe China doesn't really exist, I mean, I've never been there. Maybe I'm trapped inside The Matrix and I just don't know it. Maybe none of you really exist and I'm the sole sentient being in the universe, but if that's the case, then who created this elaborate scheme to make it seem so real? Maybe I was just created mere moments ago, but I was given all of these memories so that it would seem like I'd been here.
If it's not so, then prove it.
Is that there are countries who still hold ill-will towards the US. And I'm not talking about the companies in the US, or about the economic superiority of the US. I'm talking about countries who would like nothing more than to see the US gone from the map of the Earth.
China is not a friend. They have proven this. We should end economic aid to them (Can you believe we're giving these dogs money?) We should end trade with them. We should throw out there diplomats and any other chinese nationals (including students). We should make holding those American citizens (All 24+1 of them) as painful as possible, and not let up until they apologize to us.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
An apology won't get anyone home, that has never been promised. It is likely to do the following:
-Open the door for further demands (no more flights near China, etc.).
-Embarrass the US ("The US will admit to anything if you grab a few people and make demands."), especially when it is obvious that China is more at fault in this case.
-Create (or increase) strong anti-American feelings in China ("See? The American scum admits to murdering our pilot!").
-Put the pilot and possibly some of the crew on trial for murder in a Chinese court ("How can you deny that you are responsible when your own government says that you are?").
This is why the US should not give in to China's demands. The Chinese government has demonstrated that it does not want to play nice with the rest of the world. It's time to let them sulk in the corner while the rest of us get on with our lives.
You say that as if no Americans or Soviets were ever accidentally killed during the cold war. Some of us are old enough to remember that the USSR/US relationship during that period was FAR MORE hostile than the current one between the US and China.
These are the facts:
1. China is (and wants to remain) a trade partner of the US. Continued trade is in the best interest of both countries
2. China has been a political rival of the US ever since Chairman Mao took over.
3. Political rivals spy on each other.
4. To avoid cold wars turning into hot wars, international rules and guidelines have been established for handling these situations.
5. China has chosen to ignore these guidelines, by damaging a US plane in international waters, forcing it to land in China, taking the crew hostage, and salvaging the plane for whatever secrets they can find. All of these actions ignore established treaties and protocols, none of the US actions can be faulted at this point.
As for the embassy bombing... We accidentally took out a French embassy in the 80's when we were bombing Lybia. Then, as now, we apologized for the incident, stating (quite truthfully) that any time you bomb an enemy, you risk damaging surrounding buildings which may belong to people you do not intend to attack. France has yet to take Americans hostage in the wake of that incident.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
So 2 moderators got the humor, anyway.
As for the post that was not modded up... he posted as an AC after hundreds of posts have already gone by. Nobody is reading these threads any more beyond people looking at replies to their comments, so there is nobody left to moderate them. (Other than bitter people with a grudge, hence the late "Troll" mod that was done to my post).
I agree that his post had a lot of interesting points, although they have all been said by now several times. It's the nature of /. discussions that we start repeating each other after a while.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
We are not right because we are Americans, we are right because we did nothing wrong.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Yes.
One that throws its weight around at the UN to get the UN to serve its needs (bugger everyone else), and yet fails to pay its UN fees. Oh... you mean like the former Soviet Union. Or France? Or China? The UN is an institution which is mostly of Europeans, for Europeans, and of Europeans. We provide most of the UN's armed forces, but have very little say over where they are deployed (no more say that China has, for example).
Oh, so they have ICBM's targeted at your cities... oh thats really bad, I feel so sorry for you. Maybe its because you have ICBM's targetted at them?
Yes. I did not say they lacked the right to have their missiles targeted at us. I was pointing out that ANY country would be insane not to monitor a rival nation who has nuclear attack capability. That includes us, and them.
As for the last few lines of what you wrote, how about reading them and realising you are exibiting the same childish nonsense that the US as a country does.
It was meant to be funny. Shop around and see if you can afford to get a sense of humor.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Because of security reasons, etc. Military aircraft generally do NOT have black boxes.
Even if the hardware is all busted up and the drives been wiped. There is still alot you can do in data recovery with a government level budget and a lot of time.
Personally, I would have hoped that they were tossing things out the door into the ocean. Salt water is wonderful for electronics
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Sadly Chinese interests do have control in places like the San Diego shipyards, the Panama Canel, and even in the Bahamas. Given that and covert operations, the potential is there for things to get messy.
Some people speculate that the Chinese military wants a war with the US in a few years, just as a way to grab power and to short circuit certain internal problems due to poor planning of infra structure. Heck the military may want to get nuked just to help handle excess population, crule as that sounds.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
That might be believable if the P-3 was a small, nimble plane. It's not. Please try again.
The Chinese are reacting to a zelous White House that spend the first 100 days to project an image of national toughness at the expense of China ( such an image would help Bush to run ahead with his runaway pro-corporate agenda, it will also directly justify more military pork). The problem is that China has a similar internal political dynamics, and it was just a matter of time until they reacted. The accident came in the right moment for them. It is used now by factions inside China to weaken the architects of economic reform.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
The *REST* of the planet is trying their damndest to get Madonna and McDonalds in their countries as fast as they can. The LEADERS in other countries have a ton of ideas about how the world should be run -- all of them bad. American doesn't want to rule the world, they just want to have a good time on Saturday night.
Which is better -- people who just want to have their Big Macs and Budweisers, or people who want to control the lives of every other person in the world for an idealized goal only definable by a handful of people?
Ill tell your friend, i have alot of capable and wise retorts for your arguments... but im too snapped on HoneyBrown & Keiths to bother. But your points above are very salient and interesting. Basically: I dont know. I dont propose to have the answers to all(most/some) of the answers, i believe i would like to be apart of the solution... whatever it may be. I have no problem suppporting "It".
If you have a good idea to provide for the happiness/welfare of *EVERYONE* im willing to die for it.... but lets get on with it, im tired of all this suffering. Im sad that others people are sick, hungry and angry. clal me an idealist but im really interested in peace, love and understanding. "No" im not kidding - dont you ever get upset about the futility and anger you have to deal with everyh day?
The US plane was in international airspace on autopilot, the Chinese fighter pilot got cocky and accidentally hit the US plane.
The China has said that the plane had entered their airspace - and the US plane suddenly changed course striking the fighter.
Who is telling the truth? I dont know (dont care*) but get off the high horse and try and be objective, 'officials' from China and US are acting bold, intolerant and stupid. The public will never *really* know what happened - we will just stick to whichever dogma we are pre-disposed to believe.
That is what makes Katz's article true; nation states and this fierce nationalistic dogma is absurd. And you have demonstrated it nicely.
The whole incident should never have happened - why the hell the Chinese and Yankees growling at one another? Who the hell gives them the mandate to waste resources, time and effort on acting like children - Ill tell you it isnt me, it isnt my mirror sitting in China now - its the Plutocrats, Warmongers and CEOs who seek keep us separated and always in conflict.
If you ask me, i think both sides are acting terribly - where is the connection to reality? Instead we get this bullshit pageant played out for jingoists the world over. Im tired of it - when the hell are we going to grow up/wake up and remove these idiots from office? What are the 'goals' of these people if this is the kind of way they act after an accident? Why wont the *f*ing media be responsible and present the issues in an effort to educate, inform and facilitate understanding and communication versus the "Our International Power (Dick) is Bigger than Yours" bullshit? This whole mess disgusts me.
* I do care that someone has had to die in this pointless cockup. Maybe we should resolve to 'protect ourselves' by not playing 'asshole of the monent' with high priced armaments... just an idea. crazy isnt it: lets dissolve all nationally controlled military forces and fund a UN Peacekeeping force instead. It would end conflicts regardless of who/how it serves specific interests. Because 'this' hasnt been done simply illustrates the true purpose of the military. This idea ought to get the Freeper types all in a tizzy, because they are the shitheads who lap up all this national posturing bullshit - and actually believe that the US military is meant to 'keep peace', its really meant to be the muscle behind the Plutocrats who run the country, and prop up their imperialism.
we should go back to the USSR and show those guys what we're made of
Oh man, we're too late for this one -- the USSR doesn't exist. I guess we'll just have to declare war on China twice, instead, huh?
-- dR.fuZZo
Your point that neither the American nor the Chinese statements represent the full truth is probably accurate.
However, the rest of your post is filled by pure speculation on your part. It seems there are at least four sides to this story: the American one, the Chinese one, mks113's unsupported speculations, and the truth. (And no, I don't pretend to have the truth.)
The American plane was flying in an area that the Americans claim is International airspace. The Chinese claim that it was Chinese airspace.
Even the Chinese ambassador to the U.S. admits that the incident took place in international airspace, according to this report.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
No, even China's ambassador admits the collision took place in international airspace.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Look at it from the average Chinese person's point of view
Would that be the view before or after the tank rolls over the top of you for participating in a pro-democracy rally?
I do not have a signature
RE: I'm Canadian, and have had enough international experience to know
i cans trip.
Translation: I went hostelling in Europe once, but being Canadian, I'm a goddamned know-it-all.
We all know that China and the socialist Canadian government are in cahoots. The present PM is a disciple of Trudeau, who was a card-carrying member of the Communist party. Canadians are taught since birth to avoid conflict at all costs and capitulate to any unreasonable demand. I wouldn't trust Canada to have an objective view of this given Chretien's big crowing success speech on selling nuclear secrets to China on a "Team Canada" let's-get-business-in-Asia-cause-we-hate-the-amer
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Not even economists are so cold-hearted as to base a decision to go to war solely on whether or not it will be profitable.
No relation to Happy Monkey
Dude, Where's My Spy Plane?
Sometimes The Hardest Word is "Sorry"
Enjoy.
Similar scenario: My wife's finishing up the laundry and I ask "is there anything I can do to help?" Of couse not and she knows it.
Does Jackson actually expect Bush to ask for his help? Of course not. But offering (or demanding) to help is a much better PR choice than letting the media continue to rip your reputation assunder.
Some cynical observers have wondered aloud whether Jackson is merely trying to repair his reputation and make another run for the coveted Father of the Year Award.
ridiculopathy.com
Uhh, Jon, that's the entire freaking point. China is using hostages to cause the US to lose face in East Asia. The audience for this whole mess is government officials in Vietnam and Taiwan, not whiny Americans who can't understand why we don't just kiss and make up.
I'm no Bush fan but at least he and his crew seem to be getting what the crucial issue is here. I shudder to think what would have happened with Clinton in power. By the way, anyone with the slightest clue about aviation knows who hit whom.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
So why not apologize? Several international law experts have speculated that a formal, official U.S. acceptance of responsibility might give the Chinese a legal basis to stop the flights. This is somewhat more concrete than any notion of cultural pride, and it is an important consideration.
And it is true, the virtual state will continue to be a myth until the real states start to find common ground. Rogue states will be rogue states, Internet or not.
-db
Aside from that, I suspect that, as in other incidents of this nature, neither side is telling the whole truth. Maybe we should both apologize and go home.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Let's look at the big picture, apologise and get those soldiers home.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Knowing the kind of AA missiles (Alamos, Apex...) used by the Soviet Air Force at that time (Frontonava Avyatisha or something quite close), the pilot fired using a missile lauched from the "6 o-clock" position. That is, the soviet fighter got behind the airplane, saw the image of the 747 in the IFR viewer and launched the missile at 5 nm or less.
With IFR devices (thermal viewers) you can see the "bulged fusselage" of a 747 quite well. There's no other airplane like it.
Said that, I'm quite sure that the pilot really saw a 747, reported the 747 to the base and then he was ordered to fire. On a fighter, you are pretty much a puppet from ground control. Also, Soviet Rules and Tactics for missions were no flexible at all. So if the airpplane went there to launch a missile, it would launch the missile for sure. Whatever the airplane type was there. Even if there was no airplane at all.
Regards,
OpKool
According to articles here, here and here, it doesn't sound like the Chinese will be knocking on our door (with nuclear warheads or troops) any time soon. Given the current Chinese disputes with Russia, Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines (over islands) as well as mounting tensions with Taiwan, China is in no mood (or ability) to go to war. There will be plently of posturing, but this dispute is purely politics.
China has a lot to sort out internally before they are any sort of major military threat. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be regional conflicts that escalate (after all, that is how WW I got started), it only means that conflict between our two nations is unlikely. Do a little reading at Janes or other sites before rattling sabres. China has a long history of spying and tough talk (like the USSR, USA, et. al.), but they currently pose little threat.
If you want something to really worry about, start paying more attention to the escalation in the Middle East.
We have a turboprop plane at least 5 times the size of a fighter with waaay less power.
And then we have a fighter plane... light, built for manueverability and control for dogfights.
Tell me, who's the one who is responsible for hitting the other plane? The guys in the yacht cruising along nice and even like, or the guy in the fast little jet ski out hotshotting around?
It don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
The same applies here. Assuming our gov't is telling the truth and the plane was in international airspace, since we've been um 'wrong' about that before :)
But seriously, some hot dog pilot brings down our plane and the Chinese decide to strip it? That's a $36 million piece of hardware. The Chinese caused this mess, they can pay for it. And they aren't gonna get a freaking apology - their pilot caused the crash (I mean how does a slow prop plane crash INTO a speedy fighter and lose its nose cone unless the fighter pilot pulled into the plane's path.)
I'm also tired of the US playing wimp. Screw the CHinese. Shut down our market to them. Period. Ban all imports from China and see how they like that. I don't care if I have to pay more for my kids toys. I'm tired of dealing with nations who sell goods to use hand over fist but block our products at everyturn.
The arrogance of the Chinese and blatant propaganda is a joke. To hell with them!
And I have a major beef with Jon's editorial. I'm tired of people always saying that the US is always pushing their vlaues on other countries. Why is it during times of crisis, we're expected to be the world's policeman, but during relative calm we're expected to butt out. Make up your mind. Either we worry only about ourselves and leave the rest of you to fight for yourselves or you get our help under certain conditions. DEAL WITH IT!
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I have heard no mention of the acceptability of the spying mission.
What's there to say about it? It was spying. We do it, they do it, even the birds and the trees...wait a minnit.
Every major nation's government has spies. They all spy on each other. They even spy on their allies. It's no biggie. The trick is to try to limit the amount of spying that someone can do on you without actually hurting anyone.
Just a few weeks ago the US expelled a dozen or so Russian spies. The Russians kicked out an equal number of US spies. Nobody gets hurt. Nobody gets held hostage. Everyone says, "Yep, nice caatch." And the next week another dozen Russian spies took the place of the deported ones here in the US (and vice versa). It's just part of the game.
The United States seems not to comprehend a tradition that places an enormous premium on honor, face, and responsibility.
Honor, Face and Responsibility are the basis of the US refusal to apologize!!!
Only in a posture of weakness would the US apologize for this Chinese caused incident. To maintain honor, and to NOT become subject to the whims of ANY terrorist state, the US must not kneel to blatent arm-twisting and whining.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
The way he talkes, it sounds like he's on IRC all the time.
Bringing us to the point: What does all this have to do with the nature of virtual community and the effect of the extended communications capabilities on international politics and nationalism? Fuck all. Katz takes a complicated situation, spins it in a simplistic manner, and draws a dubious conclusion from the resulting mess. Nations exist because the human race controls vast and frightening powers of production, destruction, and health, and anyone not represented by a big gun is going to find themselves bowing to the barrel of someone else's. International disputes occur over issues of resources and power, and ideology is merely a distraction that dupes like Katz fall for because they're too lazy to do a little research. If ideas and a dozen lives were the only thing at stake in this little dispute it would already be resolved: nations are quick to abandon ideology when pragmatic concerns are at stake.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
And have the Chinese said that they're sorry about the incident?
There's no way that 4 engined prop plane _could_ run into a jet fighter.
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Monday, April 9, 2001 11:46 p.m. EDT Pentagon Official: Chicom Pilot's Dangerous Manuever No Accident
Pentagon officials now believe that a Communist Chinese fighter pilot who crashed into the South China Sea after colliding with a U.S. reconnaissance plane nine days ago deliberately tried to disrupt the American plane's airflow, a manuever that could have sent the larger aircraft into a potentially fatal tailspin.
"It happened before," a senior Pentagon official told New York's Newsday on Sunday. In recent encounters, Finback fighter pilot Wang Wei "would get his wing close enough - his wingtip under our wingtip - to disrupt the airflow over our plane's wings."
The unidentified Pentagon official explained that the loss of airflow can lead a plane to "stall, twist or drop."
U.S. officials familiar with the surveillance operation, code named "Big Look," said the midair collision between Wang's plane and the EP-3E reconnaissance aircraft flown by Lt. Shane Osborne was likely caused "by Wang having stolen Osborne's airflow."
Instead of sending the U.S. plane into a tailspin, Osborne compensated for Wang's manuever by dropping his wing to regain airflow. In the process, the EP-3's wing hit the Chinese fighter, sending Wang plummeting toward the sea.
Navy investigators can't be 100 percent sure of the "disrupted airflow" theory until Osborne and his crew are released and can speak freely.
But months before last Sunday's encounter, U.S. intelligence and military agencies had identified the Chinese pilot as "a skilled stick and rudder man who could coax his supersonic jet down to the estimated 300 mph speed of Big Look."
The Pentagon source told Newsday that Wang was "known among Big Look pilots for trying to steal their airflow."
That's why Navy brass are privately fuming over China's demand for an apology - because they believe Wang deliberately tried to bring down the U.S. plane with the dangerous maneuver that ended up costing his own life.
This is not a case of both nations being at fault. The Chinese are provoking us so that they can appear to be in the clear when they attack Taiwan and it's 'evil big-brother' the USA. If people are buying into the Chinese rhetoric bullshit, they are not thinking very clearly. George W is really wussing out on this one. And damnit, I helped vote him into office! I knew this was the one thing (his weak China policy) that would come back to bite us all in the butt.
The future as I see it seems clear to be dominated by China. It will become a 'King Khan' state, with an economy 5 times larger than that of the USA by the year 2020. However, because it will be focusing on building up its infrastructure and improving its people's quality of life, we should see the rate of technological advance in the world slow down. America is already hugely in debt to the far east, which contains the world's biggest creditor nations. All it takes is a blip for america to spiral into recession whil China steams ahead.
Many in the world will be wary of this new power, but it is well known that China is a much more outward looking nation that america historically speaking, and far less insular. It also does not have territorial ambitions, beyond claiming back its old lands, like Taiwan. Therefore life under a Chinese superpower should be relatively peaceful. The chinese do not send spyplanes over America, and ar far more relaxed and informed on world affairs.
I for one welcome our new leaders to be.
"Second to none when it comes to macho military posturing, the U.S. can't say it's sorry for the accident and bring everybody home. Various grim-faced U.S. officials, from the President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State, have been rushing around in their big black limos, and issued guarded expressions of concern and sadness, but nobody can quite bring himself to say the magic words. "
Being macho may or may not have something to do with it, but it is not the sole reason, nor even the main reason. If the U. S. were to apologize in the manner that the P. R. C. wants, not only will we be saying "I'm sorry I hit your plane," but also "I'm sorry we flew flights over your water." After all, there shouldn't be any problem in flying such flights through international water.
If the South China Sea isn't international water (which the P. R. C. has been claiming for decades), this leaves a lot of other people wide open to be "collectivized" or "assimilated" or whatever you want to call it. "You see? The U. S. even admits that it's our water, so then they also agree we own the Spratley Islands." (For those that don't know, the Spratleys are a resource-rich area of the world that's been claimed by at least five nations). This could worsen the water disputes between the P. R. C. and Vietnam (two nations that have already been to war once). This could even affect islands as far away from China as the Philippines.
Scroll to the bottom of this page for more information on the complexities of this corner of the world.
The news is focusing on the crew of the airplane, and maybe on the airplane's technology, but the big issue between the politicians is really the water the plane was flying over. If this were in the Yellow Sea (between the Korean penninsula and mainland China), this wouldn't be anywhere near as big an issue.
If you feel that we should say those "magic words" and more or less abandon that part of the world to a known oppressive and expansionist government (who's to say that they'll stop at the South China Sea? They haven't stopped with Nepal, Kashmir, Taiwan, Vietnam, and it took the Soviet nuclear arsenal to convince them not to spread north as well), then you can go ahead and play the isolationlist game. Just remember that that's exactly what the U. S. was doing at the beginning of both world wars.
US should at least apologize for not apologizing, "I'm very, very sorry, but we're not apologizing".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I've also read speculation that the E3 contained a "magnetic pulse" weapon, which may have been used to "discourage interception" by enemy fighters, and might have been a little TOO effective.
Yes, yes, and then there's the speculation (obviously not written by a pilot) that the Chinese pilot was attempting to spill fuel onto the EP3, and then set it off with his afterburners.
Before deciding if you want to give any creedence to speculation, you should ask a couple of questions, first of which would be:
1) Who would benefit from doing things that way?
The US wouldn't benefit from shooting down an intercepting Chinese jet unless that jet were going to fire, and if they were going to fire they'd have done so with a missle, not by playing lawn darts with an expensive airplane.
The odds are that the Chinese jet suddenly going down with complete electrical failure for no discernable reason would result in both an escalation of the crisis in progress, and some very unwanted attention after the fact, especially when the Chinese recovered their black box. If we have such a weapon (and I'm not speculating either way about that) the pilot would have to be a complete idiot to have used it in this situation.
This is especially ridiculous if you consider all the film of other similar events, which clearly show that the damn Chinese fly within meters of our airplanes every time they pull this crap, which is exactly WHY our pilots leave their planes on autopilot, so that an accidental flinch doesn't result in an international incident.
-
Whether or not you agree with either side in this situation, with regards to boundaries, spying, emergency mayday landings, or whatever, it's hard to simply look at China and say "so what."
The rhetoric that comes out of their country is largely overlooked in the US. Many of their leaders (political, social, military) have spoken openly of their expectations that the US will become a "has been" in the coming century. That China will, essentially, become the dominant force in the world -- economically, politically, socially, and militarily. They see it as their "Manifest Destiny," somewhat like we Americans saw the West as our destiny just over a hundred years ago.
Add to this mindset the fact that the political leadership took a lot of heat after their response to our accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in the Kosovo conflict, and the fact that Bush took a lot of heat during the Florida election mess, and you've got two very powerful leaders who, honestly, can't afford to look weak.
Now I can be just a knee-jerk as anyone. I'm amazed that we haven't recalled our ambassadors, declared the crew hostages or prisoners, or tried to push a resolution through the Security Council (which, if I'm not mistaken, would be quickly vetoed by China anyway -- *there* is a useful body). Hell, I'm amazed that we haven't even scaled up our presence in the waters nearby the island. It'd be great, both from a nationalistic and idealistic standpoint, to see a team of marines airdrop on the island, rescue the crew, and airlift the plane out (just try dogging MiGs when you're hanging a spy plane from a heavy-lift helicopter). But what would that really accomplish? We could probably win a War with China. But is it worth trying?
Bottom line: As much as I want to see these guys released, yesterday, and as much as this posturing seems crazy, remember that we're dealing with a BIG powder-keg here (after all, where was gunpowder even invented?), and the Chinese are more than ready to fight back for what they believe, most likely sincerely, is unfounded US aggression.
Real bottom line: This scares me. It should scare everyone. The really scary part is that it isn't scaring people as much as it should be.
(a good reference: China Debates the Future Security Environment - US GPO (out of print) -- 600 quotations from various Chinese authors since 1994 -- Defense Dept, National Defense University)
...In his naive and simplistic view of the situation is that China is upset over Gore losing the election. Clinton, etc, were doing everything they could to give China what it wanted (not that administrations prior to his were necessarily much better). They could roll tanks over students with impunity and know that they would retain MFN trading status with the U.S. (after all, the U.S. needs cheap Adam Sandler Underoo's and Barbie Do-It-Yourself Navel Piercing Kits, etc). They could intimidate Taiwan (our sworn ally) by test firing missiles at them and know that at worst there would be a little mumbling and hand-wringing from the U.S. but no real response, since the Clinton administration's position appear to be the Taiwan belongs to China, period.
So what are they going to do? Make Bush look bad by putting him in a really tough situation and forcing him to either look (and be!) weak, by apologizing for China's incompetent fighter pilot, or looking like a warmonger by refusing to back down to clear aggression and escalating a diplomatic incident. Regardless of what he does, a large portion of the country will criticize Bush, because like Clinton, there is a large portion of the population who hates him irrationally and will never give him credit for anything.
Remember, the Iranian hostages were also referred to as "detainees" at first.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I'm very sorry that the state of the world has come to this, but I can't trust anyone enough to base an opinion on any facts presented so far in this incident. This is exactly what the Internet was supposed to SOLVE, but instead has made worse.
I'm American, and I sympathize with American interests. I think China is very dangerous because of their immense population, their hardline political stances, and their history of human rights violations/suppression. I'm not saying we should get into a war with China, and I'm not saying China should change to adopt our culture. Rather, I'm saying that the current situation demands a VERY delicate manner when dealing with China on foreign relations, because we strongly disagree with them on many things. Now, we've basically handed them 24 American armed forces to use as leverage so that the Chinese government can gain political power. It's as simple as that.
On the other hand, the U.S. is pretty arrogant, and that clouds the issue entirely. Specifically, we don't know what the government really knows, and we don't know what the media really knows. Since they would have the most reliable sources for the happenings of this incident, we should be able to find out exactly what happened and what needs to be done from them. But we can't trust them, not only to have a realistic opinion on the issue, but also to present the facts in an unbiased and truthful manner. We may very well be entitled to say MORE than sorry.
My gut instinct says that China is more likely at fault in this particular situation than the US, but the fact that I can't trust the facts means that I can't say that I have an informed opinion. All I know for sure is that the planes actually crashed and that the Americans are being held captive for the time being.
Now, of course, the Internet was supposed to be able to help us in these cases by being an improved provider of information in a timely, honest manner. But what happened? China filters all of their Internet access, which leads me to believe that there's nothing but propaganda on their side of the network. Over here, the media, rather than wait for news to be accurate and well-developed, chooses instead to report ANYTHING the second it comes in off the news wire. The whole Dale Earndhart tragedy/autopsy situation, the presidential elections, and even the news coverage of the Oscars are perfect examples of that... we're told things in stages as they come in. But almost none of it is verified as much as it is rushed out the door, making basically every media outlet another Matt Drudge. Plus, it's like having a scrap of the newspaper delivered every five minutes as it's progressively typed. But more importantly, it's starting to have a reputation for being unreliable... not to mention biased (read some news stories about Napster and ecstacy on Yahoo! to see what kind of one-sided treatments some of these news stories get sometimes).
Of course, people have always went for cheap, flashy, and fast in this country. It baffles me that more people eat at McDonalds still than Boston Market, especially considering the price of the meals at both places is somewhat similar. The Internet is no exception... people prefer big dumb web-portals to well-organized useful information sites, even though portals go out of business because they basically don't have much of a business to start with.
Perhaps if we just bombed all of China to get those pilots back on the first day of this "incident", everyone in the US would be happy and we would have avoided this whole mess. I'm not saying it would have been the proper thing to do (far from it); it just would have kept everyone fat and happy as usual. Bush's popularity would have been way up, just like his father's was after the Gulf War. Lots of cool TV footage of bombs going off, pictures of jet planes taking off, soldiers marching in, blah blah blah. Americans love that shit. They turn out in droves for the war victory parades. They like to see fireworks. It's fucking disgraceful.
My only hope is that the youth get sick of seeing fireworks at an early age and get bored with it all... and start pursuing more sensible priorities just because they're sick of "TRL" for the millionth time. That would be great.
Some history about George Herbert Walker Bush, which may shape thoughts about his son, America's current President.
Bush the First was Envoy to China, doing what he could to avoid UN recognition of an official Peoples Republic of China, counter to Kissinger's willingness to deal with then-600,000 people as one unified-under-Communism sovereign country.
Bush Number One was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He asked Nixon to resign that fateful August, to spare the party a shred of dignity.
Bush Sr. then moved to Direct the CIA, mopping up the Watergate damage with trinkets, junkets, and some good old-fashioned spy-bustin'.
This should give you a clue as to where Bush #2 may be getting his opinions: the family looks out for Republicans First, and thinks China's leadership must be cracked.
That said, this is the only thing Bush Jr. and this Congress has done so far that I'd agree with. In order of importance: (1) stress the importance of the crewmembers, (2) the Chinese' failure to follow international standards in return of citizens and sovereign vehicles, (3) the fallout this will have on Favored Nations trading status for China. The Congress could still wimp out and give MFN again, but I'm hoping they'll stop kowtowing to the Great Bear here.
[
Highly unlikely. The US plane was on autopilot, which means the pilot could not make such a maneuver.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I'm a private pilot; not military.
But by FAA rules, size of aircraft is not a factor in determining right of way. For fixed wing aircraft with neither under distress, the vehicles are considered equivilent (there are distinctions drawn, but only when adding airships, gliders, etc. to the equation).
For a situation where one aircraft is overtaking another, the vehicle being overtaken has the right of way. But one could use this to draw stupid scenarios. For example, the chinese fighter could move ahead of the P-3, and then decelerate. In that case, it would be the responsibility of the P-3 to avoid the fighter (by passing to the right, if we're going to stay pedantic {8^).
See FAR 91.113.
But this is really silly. A few months ago, I was on a collision course with another aircraft. I had the right of way. But he wasn't moving (likely hadn't noticed me).
I avoided him.
I'd rather that than argue ROW rules to death.
Of course, the Chinese pilot was already violating FAA rules. Specifically, 91.111.b states that formation flying requires arrangement with each of the involved pilots.
What I don't understand is why so many people say that this is clearly the US's fault, and that the US should clearly apologize?
No-one gives a fuck if we Americans say "Oops! Sorry we hit your plane! We'll try to avoid crashing our $50,000,000.00 planes into your $17,000,000.00 planes in the future!".
The "apology" that the Chinese are looking for is something along the lines of "Oops! We're sorry we routinely eavesdropping on all of your electronic communications, and send a huge stream of data back to the NSA for analysis! We'll stop doing that!". Good or bad, I can't imagine the United States making an apology of this nature. It's simply never going to happen.
Remember, the people who are pumping us full of the "China wants us to apologize for hitting the plane" bullshit were the same ones who were pumping us full of the "the votes have already been counted and recounted time and time again" bullshit five months ago.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
This troll should never have been moderated so high, clearly slashdot is still highly american biased. None the less...
It's a joke, goddammit. It's Dr. Fucking Strangelove, ported to a new decade. The real problem isn't "American bias", it's ultrasensitive kneejerk-posters like you who are so concerned that someone might be serious about a point of view different from yours, that you don't even bother to read the entire post.
For all your "objectivity", you seem so hell-bent on fixing Americans' view of themselves that you're living in a completely distorted reality-- one in which the original post was alive during the war of 1812. Wow.
I am getting really angered at the American peoples overriding desire to support everyone in the world. If you are so damn supportive of the Chinese you should move your butts over there and start working in thier factories. 14 hours a day for a few bowls of rice will teach you how bad you had it living in the terrible United States of American.
Make no mistake: Its like this in China *BECAUSE* you live so well in the states. Do you think people are lying when they tell you about how absurd American Consumer culture appears to the rest of the world? how about pollution - do you think its a lie that America is the main offender when it comes to the items the Kyoto Protocol is trying to address? Do you think the rest of the world feels you are imperialist warmongers - but we are *all* wrong about it?
Make no mistake friend, America is enjoying a good position in history at this moment, but they are by no means a testament to 'good decisions' or a model of a 'good culture'. Raping the planet, using your military to defend business interests, meddling in foreign affairs coupled with the good fortune of never having a war on your own soil - this soulnessness and ruthlessness is what put your culture at the top of the 'wealth' pile... nothing more. But I believe the latter cause would teach US citizens a great deal about where their priorities should be. You'd be surprised I bet about how adamant the citizens of the country would be about universal health care, social programs and environmental/social issues if their little 'pop culture utopia' were ever destroyed by a war on US soil. USian frivolity and hubris is beyond ridiculous approaching the surreal.
US of America would be well served to find some Tolerance, Understanding and Community - when you look at your culture's 'wealth' you may be surprised to find it is actually the most bankrupt in the things that matter. The rest of the world has some very different priorities than to slave to make a few people rich (as USians seem to do) - maybe this is why the rest of us dont have as many material good - ever think that you dont need all that crap to be happy?
The only problem is that USian greed has reached the point where they must infect the rest of the planet to continue to grow/exploit - and rest assured, the *REST* of the planet has *VERY* different ideas about how the world should be run... and many USians are even beginning to agree.
The real problem here for the politico's lies in the fact that the age old practice of "villification" won't work here.
Usually in the past when confronted with a situation or crisis, we can point to specific incidents which stir the American public to believe that the other side is at fault, that they are treating Americans unfairly, and basically, make the job of standing on firm ground alot easier on them (even if its not particularly the correct position).
In this case, however, we are left with a deplorable situation where both sides made mistakes, both refuse to accept that fact, and there is no clear villan.
Was the United States spying on its trade partner and at least tenous friend, China? Yes. However, China has been guarded in its criticism of the purpose of the plane, considering their own espionage efforts against the United States.
Were the Chinese planes perhaps flying unsafely close to the American plane? Well, until a statement by the pilots is released, or flight logs seen, we wont really know. However, there has been acknowledged evidence in the past by multiple countries that China's pilots aren't exact the best in the world, and they tend to intercept at extremely close ranges.
Are the Chinese being unfair? Yes, in the fact that (at least as far as I can read), they haven't issued their apology for dangerous interception practices. However, post-incident, they have been extremely low-key and even gracious towards the situation. Their "prisoners" are being treated well by any standards and its not as if they are threating military action for this situation.
Is the United States being hard ass? Yes, and mostly due to political climates and military attitudes than due to lack of culpability. Now, dont get me wrong. I WANT a macho armed forces. But I also want one that can admit their wrong (considering many top leaders still believe in the Vietnam effort, perhaps I'm being naive here.)
See? No clear winners and losers. That makes taking a clear stand neigh impossible. Which is uncharted waters for both countries diplomatic corps, who usually follow a political and philosophical dogma which is, at least to them, unimpeachable.
"Moving through the masses like a fish through water." syrup
Same thing for boats as well as airplanes: Big vehicle has the right of way. Period. Secondly, the average cruising speed of a MiG-21 is around 800 miles an hour, compared to the 348 MPH of the P-3 Orion based craft. WTF were they doing sooo close? Furthermore, what is this "violation of international law" that the Chinese officials keep yapping about? Other than "right of way" in international airspace, what about the "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" (to lazy to imbed link) http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH444.txt which I do beleive gives US the right to visit detained miltary personel.
Either the US or China should declare war on the other, already. I'm sick of this crap.
It used to be that countries would declare war on each other because of petty rivalries between dukes and princes. Now, it sometimes takes an act of god to get them to go at it. How stupid is that?!?!
We're spending billions of dollars (a big chunk of our GDP) on national defense. And we never even use it! We shuffle our troops from base to base, sure, and we log our mileage and tally our days in service and hang our medals. But do we ever do anything productive? Do we ever kill anyone? Of course not.
Is it because we can't anymore? Bullshit. It's because we're afraid to. It's because we've let ourselves get castrated by the liberal media and their doomsday predictions about what might happen if one nation accidentally steps on the toes of the other.
Are we the world's largest superpower or what?!?! Is Bush to big a chump or is he just a pansy?!?!
If we don't start declaring open war on countries that disrespect our sovereignty, then foreign countries will think they can get away with pissing us off. Can you imagine FDR or Eisenhower letting the Chinese hold our American soldiers hostage like this? We haven't seen crap like this since Jimmy Carter, and let me tell you, those were some pretty sad days.
We must settle for no less than outright war. They think they have the upper hand now, but wait until we give it to them old-fashioned American style. They probably don't even have all those nukes they keep whispering about. Have we ever seen them detonate one? Well have we? NO! They don't exist.
Once open war is declared, our economy will boom. It'll be the answer to our recent economic downturn. Look at how WW2 pulled us out of the Depression. And look at how much more expensive modern equipment is. More expenses mean more contribution to our economy and our GDP. That means more funding for the military. It's a positive feedback loop.
And when we're done with China, we should go back to the USSR and show those guys what we're made of. We never bombed them for the U2 incident all those years ago, so it's time we showed them what for. That's what distinguishes the men from the Canadians.
That's very true, especially considering previous incidents with the same pilot. Supposedly this isn't the first time this pilot acted like an idiot. Apparently he pulled this same stunt on another flight, getting so close to the other plane that the american pilots could read a sign he was holding up to the window with his e-mail address written on it.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Xinhua News Service has the official ChiCom party line on this incident and assorted other things. The site reads like an American parody of Communist "journalism". Funny as hell, in a pathetic sort of way, particularly their descriptions of the acrobatic moves our big, slow, prop-driven aircraft can do. Of course, they don't *mention* that they're big, slow, prop-driven aircraft...
Netcraft says they're running Netscape-Enterprise 4.1 on Solaris, alternating with Apache/1.3.6 on Solaris. So much for Red Flag Linux.
Anyhow, if you want to know what the Chinese people are being fed, there y'go.
The US plane was in international airspace on autopilot, the Chinese fighter pilot got cocky and accidentally hit the US plane.
The US plane was in distress and landed at the nearest airfield, which was the Chinese base.
Seems to me like the Chinese should apologize for the hot dog pilot.
later, thermo
Many people are incredulous that such a row is made over a simple apology. I'm incredulous that they could be so clueless.
An apology in diplomatic matters such as these is the same as pleading guilty to a criminal offense. By apologizing, Bush would be proclaiming to the world that the spy plane should not be there in the first place, that the fighter pilot had the right to be buzzing an American plane in international air-space, and that China would have free go to continue such behavior in the future.
Yes we want our people back, but they are soldiers. They have sworn an oath to die for their country if called upon. An apology now, even to save their lives, would make it much more dangerous for military personnel patrolling in international waters around our eastern allies. At any point in the future, China, who is reported to have growing international ambitions, could scuttle any of our vessles and just say, "Now apologize."
Bush hasn't apologized yet. He should not. He should make it clear that the US will not be bullied. He should state the case clearly that the Chinese pilot is at fault here, and make it clear that the US will continue to spy on countries around the world from international waters. He should then demand the return of the crew and reparations for the aircraft, with threats to cut off all diplomatic relations as his club.
Anything else is giving in to a bully and will only lead to more pain in the future.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The peace between China and the US has never been one of mutual friendship; it has always been one of strained political ties in order to reap the economical benefits. Thus, America aided China in becoming more economically stable, and China provided the sweatshops for American industry.
Something you must understand, Katz (make your time!), is that Communism is the arch enemy of Commercialism, in the eyes of the US and the eyes of China (and other Communist countries). This makes the US the sworn enemy of China. You simply can't keep going around spouting your idealist slashdotist ideals - they're cultish and removed from reality. Please correct this.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
On behalf of all Americans, let me say that I am sorry.
I am sorry that we dared to fly a plane in international waters without your permission. We will be sure to check with you next time.
I am sorry that we were trying to keep an eye on a communist dictatorship who has ICBM's targeted at our cities. I don't know what we were thinking.
I am also deeply sorry that we crashed into your ran into your little fighter jet with our big, lumbering 4-prop spy plane. I'm sure that the jet pilot had absolutely no chance of getting out of the way, and the accident is entirely our fault.
Oh yes, and I would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by the trouble of holding 24 of our people. Please allow us to reimburse you for all the food that these freeloading hostages have been eating at your expense.
Lastly, let me assure you that the next time we hold a vote over Most Favored Nation status for China, and when we vote about China's admission to the WTO, and when China is considered to host the 2008 Olympics... I sincerely promise you that we will, at that time, say "fuck off and die you damned red commie bastards!"
I hope this apology makes our feelings clear.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Here is what I see:
The American plane was flying in an area that the Americans claim is International airspace. The Chinese claim that it was Chinese airspace. The conflict was not about where the plane was, but about who Really owns it.
The US plane was intercepting electronic communications originating in China, i.e. spying.
The chinese know damn well what they are doing, and don't like it, but the americans are sufficiently outside the recognized territory, that they can't do much other than make sure the american know that they know.....
The Chinese pilots shadowing the E3 were hotdogging, as fighter pilots are prone to do.
The americans decide to teach the fighter pilot a lesson and do a little wing waggle or the like to give him a scare. Nobody here has ever had the temptation to pull on their car's emergency brake while some idiot is tailgating, right?
The American public, due to cultural reasons and media induced propaganda won't stand for an apology, as it was obviously solely the responsibility of the Chinese pilot. I have heard no mention of the acceptability of the spying mission.
The Chinese public, due to cultural reasons and government induced propaganda won't accept anything less than a full apology. They hold the cards, they can push a little.
Both sides have a tremendous amount to lose by pushing this too far. It appears to me that it is stretching the governments control on the whole issue now that the population and media is getting pretty worked up. So far the American government has been trying not to inflame public opinion, which they could easily do. The Chinese government is doing their best to inflame public opinion (or so we are led to believe).
My guess is that the Fighter jock was trying to scare the bejesus out of the americans, and the americans reacted somewhat predictably.
I expect to see the Americans move closer to the apology that the Chinese want, get the crew and plane back, then launch a full fledged propaganda war, still being carefull not to damage trade too much.
An interesting situation to follow, but lets try not to get too worked up about it. Wars have started over less, and we don't need any more of those!
------------------------------
If someone shot down my wang, I'd want an apology too.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
To the great and all wise leaders of the People's Republic of China. My country, The United States of America, has done you a great harm. Since my foolish leaders have not apologized for the latest airplane incident, let me do it on behalf of the American People . . .
I'm sorry that no other country in the world recognizes that as China airspace.
I'm sorry that this particular pilot flew so close on previous occasions that our pilots could get his email address.
I'm sorry that you took no corrective action when we complained about this pilot before.
I'm sorry that you think that a turbo prop plane the size of a 737 can hit a fast, highly manueverable MIG fighter on purpose.
I'm sorry that you think that the US can give an apology without an inquiry first, by fully debriefing the crew or reading the flight recorders (black boxes) to gain an accurate picture as to what has happened.
I'm sorry that your air traffic controllers ignored the pilot calling "mayday - mayday".
I'm sorry that you are holding 24 Americans as hostage, and have violated american sovereign territory by boarding our plane.
Furthermore,
I'm sorry that you have killed millions of your own people in your cultural revolution and great leaps forward.
I'm sorry that you persecute religious minorities such as the Fulan Gong, Christians and Muslims.
I'm sorry that you feel you can impose your will on the people of Tibet and Taiwan.
I'm sorry that you regularly detain scholars who disagree with your policies.
I'm sorry that you use prison labor and export those products to my country.
Please note our sincere regrets and we humbly await your gracious forgiveness.
Make no mistake: Its like this in China *BECAUSE* you live so well in the states.
Balderdash -- it's like that in China because of the Chinese, not Americans. Bob and Martha aren't forcing the Chinese to use slave labor, but they'll take advantage of it if the Chinese make it available. As will the Russians, the Vietnamese, the Japanese, even the Kenyans.
You don't like the American consumer culture -- that's fine. In fact, I'll join you in casting dispersions on it. However, I will not allow you to make distortions of the truth.
Raping the planet, using your military to defend business interests, meddling in foreign affairs coupled with the good fortune of never having a war on your own soil.
Unmitigated nonsense -- "raping the planet" is a nice phrase, but not true. Americans make a mess, sure -- and we're the only country to clean up after ourselves. If you don't believe me, go eat some Cherynobyl vegetables or take a nice long drink out of the Volga.
Using the military to defend business -- this beats hell out of using the military to keep you and your cronies in gold lame' PJs (a la Danny Ortega).
And we had a pretty damn bad war on our soil -- the Civil War killed more Americans than any other war.
The only problem is that USian greed has reached the point where they must infect the rest of the planet to continue to grow/exploit - and rest assured, the *REST* of the planet has *VERY* different ideas about how the world should be run... and many USians are even beginning to agree.
Yep -- there's always one fox who thinks they should stop burrowing because it makes life so hard for the hounds.
The *REST* of the planet is trying their damndest to get Madonna and McDonalds in their countries as fast as they can. The LEADERS in other countries have a ton of ideas about how the world should be run -- all of them bad. American doesn't want to rule the world, they just want to have a good time on Saturday night.
Which is better -- people who just want to have their Big Macs and Budweisers, or people who want to control the lives of every other person in the world for an idealized goal only definable by a handful of people? Your answer will define you better than anything else.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
The American reluctance to apologize for this incident isn't just stubbornness. There are real diplomatic reasons not to apologize here.
First and foremost is China's imperialistic stance toward the China sea. We claim the aircraft was in international airspace, but China claims it was in their airspace. The reason we disagree is because China claims the Paracel islands, which would increase their airspacea good 500 miles into the China sea. No other country in the world recognizes China's claim to those islands, and Vietnam and Indonesia also claim them. If we were to apologize, the US would be officially recognizing China's claim to these islands.
There is also the matter of blame for the accident, which in diplomatic circles carries real responsibility. The US could be forced to pay reparations for the fighter plane and the missing pilot if we apologize, regardless of whether or not we caused the incident. Failure to do so will harm the US's status at the UN, and further cement China's claim on the China sea.
This incident was an accident, and we should not apologize.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Or maybe it's simpler. International diplomacies often seem to have the undercurrent of grade school recess. But the truth is, if our country appears to have weakness in the eyes of China, this could be taken as a sign of weakness, which will negatively impact future dealings. The political climate in China is complicated and (as I understand it), partially under the control of military interests.
I think the US government is aware of this, and is aware of just how important it is to deal with this situation correctly.
Sure, to those of us on the outside, it seems like an idiotic impasse. Just say you're sorry and no harm done, or is there?
While I admit our government doesn't often act in global best interests, and has become increasingly self-centered in recent years, I'm not willing to judge them on this manner. The emerging political dynamic between the US and China is extremely complex and this incident is going to be very influential in shaping our relations for years to come.
Maybe it's a sad state of affairs that countries can't just apologize and be done with it, but it's the way things are, and there are legitimate reasons that things are this way.
2) The internet will not democratise China. The internet will not democratise China. The internet will not democratise China. Say it with me again, Katz, the internet will not democratise China. There are far too many inroads into China for western culture, but the internet is the smallest and easiest controlled. Wonder where those "billions" of dollars are going on "infrastructure"? I'd bet a pound to a penny you could get a good Echelon-type system together for even one billion...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
You're right, and that is exactly the problem. I think Katz has hit on something here, but you have to understand the history and culture of both countries to really grasp it. This situation was most likely not the fault of the US, and we would NEVER apologise for something that was not our fault. As Katz says, Bush would be eaten alive by congress and the electorate. We have a culture that does like to aplologise, but hates and loathes to apologise for something it doesn't believe it did. You might convince Bush to say he was sorry if he thought it was our fault, but he doesn't and isn't likely to be convinced (for once I agree with him).
China has a very different culture. As far as the the Chinese Gov't is concerned, bad things are NEVER the fault of the the Chinese gov't. When Governments are to blame for bad things, the mandate of Heaven that allows them to rule is in jeapardy, and that is very serious. China will insist on an apology. They could find a black box from the Chinese plane in which the pilot says "Damn, how foolish of me. I have run into a defenseless plane over international waters, because of a boneheaded manuver on my part. This entire incident is my fault and I must die now as my plane hits the water." and the Chinese would still demand an apology. They have to... to do otherwise shows unconciousable weakness, and admit fault (which is of course impossible.) It is also typical of Chinese culture for the weakest party in any confillct to apologise for it, again, regaudles of fault. This means that in addition to admitting to making mistakes (impossible), the Chinese gov't would also have to admit that they are the weaker party (never going to happen).
In short, what we have here is a US gov't that cannot apologise (it doesn't need an apology from the Chinese, it's willing to deal with a "no fault" situation), and a Chinese gov't that HAS to have an apology (a determination of fault being needed for the Chinese to show their relative strength, and to prove that they AREN'T at fault). This immpass would be relativly trival of course, if their weren't a US aircrew stuck in China waiting for a resolution. That's what this article is about... Cultural norms getting in the way of practicle resoltion. China is risking it's increasing standing in the international community by insisting on an apology it probably has not right to. Why? cultural norms insist on it. The US is risking the lives of its service members instead of just mealey mouthing a quick "I'm sorry" it doesn't really mean. Why? Cultural norms. Ironically, though I see this, I still agree with the US position. Why? Because I am affected by the same cultural norms. Until someone bends (or the aircrew croaks which will cause a whole new set of issues), this situation will continue.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
During the cold war, a Soviet spy plane (spying on America from International waters) had to make an emergency landing in Alaska.
How did we handle this? Did we snoop around in the plane? Detain the pilots as hostages? Demand an apology from the Russians?
No. We refueled their plane and sent them on their way.
I think that answers your question.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
What I don't understand is why so many people say that this is clearly the US's fault, and that the US should clearly apologize? From just about every news source I have read, military experts from around the world say that the chinese scenario of the EP suddently swerving into the smaller and faster chinese jet is ridiculous.
The pilot of the particular jet has even had a history of doing hotshot manuevers such as coming up from beneath the splyplanes directly in front of them, giving them a jolt--a move perfected by the soviets originally. So we have a slow lumbering jet on AUTO-PILOY! and a small, limber, and fast jet being flown by a hot-shot--where do you think the fault lies?
The US has offered to help look for the downed pilot--the offer of help has indeed been extended several times, and has been rejected several times by the Chinese government. If they really cared about the downed pilot, wouldn't they want all the help they could get--I know I would? Instead they criticize the US government being too cowardly to apologize. Apparently having the US kowtow to Beijing is more important than the life of their downed man. But of course they also work the Chinese public up to frenzy over him, thanks to the Xinhua government owned news agency and other propaganda machines.
So in short, I see no reason for the US to apologize for an accident that almost definitely wasn't their fault, and especially to a government whose actions reek of insincerity and sheer politicing as much as those of the communist chinese do.
Scott
I don't think Mr. Katz has a full understanding of the facts.
1. This incident occured over 60 MILES from Chinese territory. The international boundry by treaty is only 12 miles out from shore! So the US plane was clearly in international airspace, where it had every right to be.
2. Trying to hit a fighter jet capable of Mach 2 flight with a lumbering DC-3 like prop plane (planes like the "spyplane" were used for NY to DC air service back in the 1950's!) is rather like trying to deliberately hit a speedboat with a sailboat. It just doesn't happen, unless the pilot of the jet plane either did something foolish (which Wang Wei, the pilot in question, has a documented history of being a hot dog) or else the pilot of the jet was in such a position that the prop plane pilot could not see him or detect his location.
The very fact that this incident occured SOLELY because of the interference with the US plane by Chinese jet planes, in international territory, would lead any logical peson to the conclusion that the fault must certainly rest with the Chinese.
Just as in the laws of sea navigation, it is incumbent on a powered craft to steer clear of a sailing craft, jets have to avoid prop planes that are nowhere as fast or manuverable.
3. International law and treaty (which China is a party to) hold that ALL nations have an obligation to give safe harbor and lend assistance to a disabled aircraft. Back in the 1980's, a Soviet spy plane had trouble and was allowed to land in Alaska. After it was repaired, the crew was allowed to leave, completely unmollested.
4. China is, without any legal, ethical, or moral cause, holding 24 American servicepeople hostage, according to ANY treaty that has ever been ratified by both the US and China.
China is messing with forces that it does not understand, being that their government is incestuous, closed, autocratic in nature. They are lucky that our govenrment so far has been VERY leniant and been going out of it's way to inflame the wrath of the American people.
However, if China does not release the hostages soon, this will change, and leave the control of our own government. And China needs our markets to sell their goods to far more than we need to allow our wonderful and patriotic corporations the bility to export factories and jobs to their slave labor market.
Americans react poorly to Americans being held hostage. As well we should.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance