Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon: Chinese Ship Captures US Underwater Drone Fom Sea (usatoday.com)

The Pentagon is demanding that China return an "unlawfully seized" underwater drone after a Chinese warship took the device from waters near a US oceanographic vessel. From a report on USA Today: A U.S. Navy underwater drone operating in international waters was captured by a Chinese warship in the South China Sea, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said in a statement on Friday. The drone is not armed and is used for gathering weather and temperature data. The incident occurred Thursday. The drone was launched by the USNS Bowditch, a civilian crewed oceanographic ship that is operated by the Military Sealift Command, off the coast of the Philippines. These types of drones, called gliders, typically collect unclassified data, such as water temperatures and salinity levels. "We call upon China to return our UUV immediately, and to comply with all of its obligations under international law," Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said in a statement, using the abbreviation for "unmanned underwater vehicle."

18 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Glomar Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you kids don't remember the Glomar Explorer,
    it's about time you googled it.
    Those Chinese ain't stupid.

  2. Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After reading various books on the history of the CIA, I am a bit skeptical when we report a civilian vessel doing scientific research is captured by another country.

    If this drone only measures temperature and salinity, whats the big deal beyond the cost? They will give it back eventually. Perhaps in ( pieces ).

  3. Re:Time for war by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The social unrest is already boiling just below the surface and their economic bubble is about to burst. This is why they're sabre rattling and egging on a conflict. It's a classic move from their playbook. They know a hot war is unlikely.

  4. Re:Almost seems destiny by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it difficult to imagine any scenario that makes China the "world's greatest power."

    Then you have the imagination of a turnip. You literally cannot imagine a scenario in which the nation with the largest population in the world and a GDP on track to surpassing the USA in around 10 years could become the world's greatest power? I'm not saying any of this is certain, or even likely, but not even being able to imagine the possibility is dumbfounding.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  5. Re:Non story by Frank+Burly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I heard that the crew was unable to destroy most of the sensitive electronics onboard. Ditching the electronics would likely be pretty difficult unless it was designed for easy disassembly for the application of hammers and etching acid.

    As people may recall, the Chinese fighter jet was harassing an unarmed spy plane flying over international waters when the fighter pilot overestimated his skill and/or the distance between the two planes.

    The current incident is more bold in that it was intended to be an international incident, while the 2001 collision became an international incident at the moment of impact.

    It is unfortunate that Democrats have to clean up Trump's messes before he even takes office.

  6. Re:Almost seems destiny by Shimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It has the largest population, the largest military and the largest industry. It's busy making strategic investments around the world and territorial claims. It's investing huge sums on science and engineering to make up for any technological lag.

    I wouldn't like to bet against China being the dominant world power by the end of the century, whether I like it or not. Mostly not.

  7. Some helpful context: by morethanapapercert · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article doesn't mention this, but I know it's been posted on Slashdot before, large swathes of the South China Sea are no longer clearly International Waters as the current article implies. For a couple of years now, China has been building artificial islands in the region. China appears to be doing this mainly to expand its territorial waters. China's efforts have been centred largely in the Spratly and Paracel Islands regions. The Paracels are arguably within the Vietnamese territorial waters, while international treaties recognize the Spratly group as being within the Philippine exclusive economic zone.

    Thus, from the Chinese point of view, the drone was likely a) spying on their military bases being built on one of the islands they are expanding and b) doing so from within waters they claim as their own.

    From the US point of view, a) they were operating in what is still internationally recognized as either international waters or waters controlled by their Philippine allies. and b) getting the closest possible look at the military installations a major power was building, which are responsible for a major change in the balance of tensions in the region. (One can easily argue that these efforts by the Chinese government are deliberately provocative)

    As a final note; I do not believe for one moment that the drone deployed by the US navy only gathers such non-classified data the article mentions. Drones are primarily intelligence gathering platforms after all, not science research vessels. If I were developing, deploying and operating multi-million dollar drones in an area currently under a great deal of military and economic tensions, I'd be loading that drone with every type of sensor, (active and passive) that I could possibly fit in its hull. Given the current tensions, I'd be using only its passive sensors to be sure. I wouldn't want my drone getting caught. The best intelligence, after all, is the intelligence the opponent doesn't even know you have. But I'd be certainly doing more than measuring temperatures and salinity. My primary interest would probably be using passive sonar to *thoroughly* map the sea bottom and gps/ inertial tracking to chart how the Chinese construction was affecting the local currents and thermocline depths. Should hostilities ever break out, such detailed knowledge of the area would make finding and combating submarines much easier as well as giving my own subs the tools they need to maximise their own efforts at hiding.

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    1. Re:Some helpful context: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are still clearly International Waters, when everyone except China accepts them as so.
      A country gets 50 miles of water from its coast. Little island outposts don't expand that.

  8. Is it wrong to be suspicious? by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it wrong I'm suspicious as to the actual nature of this drone? I mean, sure; it makes perfect sense for it to be doing what they say it was. However, it's equally possible it's gathering military intelligence.

    I don't trust either country involved. although I don't know why China would waste their time on a meteorological drone.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Is it wrong to be suspicious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or cutting/tapping fibre-optic cables.

  9. Re:Time for war by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be mutually assured economic destruction. Now, that being said, you may still be right, we just need to be ready for the consequences.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  10. Re:Almost seems destiny by TheReaperD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are, sadly, many people in the US that cannot see the US as anything other than the world's greatest country, in everything, and that it will continue to be the greatest until the end of time. It's a fantasy that they can't see past and refuse to even try. The US has not been the leader in many categories for some time and we're the leader is some categories that we really don't want to be, such as highest percentage of population in prison. These people are not only sad, they're dangerous to the continued survival of the country as we can't fix problems that we refuse to see or acknowledge.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  11. Re:Time for war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well mao zedong and pol pot would prolly disagree wit ya.

  12. LOL by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good thing the Pentagon has an unblemished record of never claiming anything to not have military purpose that wasn't a lie. That record of honesty will give their word a lot of weight when they are in the right like this.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  13. Re:Time for war by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, attacking a capturing US equipment in international waters changes the whole evaluation of the likelihood of a hot war. We simply can't tolerate this behavior. They have to give it back, apologize, and stop trying to claim new areas of the Pacific to avoid war. And that isn't going to happen. The only question at this point is, are we going to stick to a cold war? One of the reasons that the historical Cold War stayed cold was that both sides realized that certain actions required a response, and both sides quietly didn't do those things. China seems unaware of how that works.

  14. Permanent Court of Arbitration legal ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The article doesn't mention this, but I know it's been posted on Slashdot before, large swathes of the South China Sea are no longer clearly International Waters as the current article implies. For a couple of years now, China has been building artificial islands in the region. [...]

    Yup, and it has been ruled by the Permanent Court of Arbitration that those artificial islands do nothing to change the claims of China:

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_Arbitration

  15. Re:Time for war by currently_awake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trump seems to have no self control, and the President has a lot more power than he should. There is no way to win a war with China: We are not willing to invade (ground war in Asia, see Russian front during WW2 for details), and they can't win at sea or in the air.

  16. Re:Time for war by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is just the one of a long sequence of clearly illegal actions. Maybe this is not the last straw but it's certainly a very bold one. This is in international waters no matter that they added fake islands and 9 dashes to map.