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."

65 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Time for war by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need to team up with Russia and attack China. It is the only way. We are now run by Russia anyway.

    1. 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.

    2. 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." -
    3. Re:Time for war by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      A war could help them economically especially if overpopulation is a problem for them. You can't be poor, unemployed, or homeless if you are dead.

      I know that it sounds terrible but there really isn't any other way to have a sudden reduction in population.

    4. Re:Time for war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    5. 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.

    6. Re:Time for war by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The social unrest is already boiling just below the surface and their economic bubble is about to burst.

      A lot of Chinese are seething, and it is not just about the slowing overall economy. Many are angry about the Hokou System of hereditary castes that dispossess hundreds of millions of people, and deny them access to education, health-care, housing, etc. They also have tens of millions of young men with no hope of finding a wife and starting a family.

      This is why they're sabre rattling and egging on a conflict. It's a classic move from their playbook.

      They tried that in 1966. More than 2 million people died, and their economy was set back by a decade.

      They know a hot war is unlikely.

      It is easy to generate national outrage by blaming outsiders. It is harder to control it. For instance, a face-off with America might be seen in Taiwan as an opportunity to declare independence, which China would see as a major escalation. Activists in Tibet and Xinjiang may also see it as a chance to stir up trouble.

    7. Re:Time for war by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      I think the US should do that, and also re-occupy everything that has a US base during WWII, including military occupation of the Spratly's, and we should have THAAD protection for not only the Spratly's but everywhere within 1000 miles of China.

    8. Re:Time for war by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Superpowers can't go to war directly. If they do, everyone loses in massive nuclear attack, and all sides know it. That's why the idea of a cold war was invented - a struggle for power by espionage and proxy wars.

    9. Re:Time for war by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      We don't lose jobs from a trade war with China, we lose stuff that can be made elsewhere. We can build one third the new factories in America, one third in India, and one third in Russia and everyone wins. None of the other countries in Asia are suitable as China will threaten/invade to block the jobs loss, and we need to pay off Russia to support us in this.

    10. 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.

    11. Re:Time for war by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      We need to team up with Russia and attack China.

      It won't work. China built a Wall.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Time for war by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      They also have tens of millions of young men with no hope of finding a wife and starting a family.

      In America, we call those, "gamers".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Time for war by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      All we have to do is tell Russia that China stole our remote-controlled boat. Putin will be like "well obviously you need to start a trade war and re-position your global manufacturing industries". Putin understands that remote-controlled boats are serious business.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    14. Re:Time for war by invid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is what a slow motion train wreck looks like.

      The Chinese will want the United States and Trump to lose face because of what Trump said about Taiwan. Because Obama is still in power, Trump will make fun of him for being a weakling in his response to China, whatever it is. Then, once Trump becomes President, he will have to respond in a way that escalates the problem, to differentiate himself from the "weak" Obama. China will do more of these types of actions to make Trump lose face. Trump will continue to escalate the crisis by tweeting insults to China, because Trump will rather start a war than lose face. Add to this the fact that the Chinese government needs to distract its population from its own failures and corruption, and what is better to do that than a potential war with the United States? This is a perfect storm of stupid, needless crisis, and it will end very badly.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    15. 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.

    16. Re: Time for war by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is just the one of a long sequence of clearly illegal actions.

      Why, because it violates the UN convention that governs autonomous vessels in international waters? Here's why I think it's a non-issue: if it's a civilian/research drone, the Chinese got nothing. If it's a military/intelligence drone with features or aspects that are classified... well, all is fair in love and war.

      But rest assured, we are at war (as we always have been).

    17. Re:Time for war by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember that China has been unsuccessful in keeping ANY of its friends around for long other than North Korea which is very telling. Look back over the last 65 years. They've flirted with Russia and then bit the hand...and India....and Vietnam....and now the US...etc.

      If there is any kind of hot war, China will be alone since they have proven they cannot be trusted. The instant they are engaged in any real conflict, all their domestic issues will come home to roost...Tibet, Xinjiang,Taiwan, etc.

      China wants to appear strong, but if the poop hits the fan, they don't have much of a chance. Who is going to help them? The African and South American countries who have been taking financial aid in exchange for wagging fingers at Taiwan? Please.

      Regardless of what Iraq looks like now, when they attacked Kuwait they had one of the best equipped, largest, and most modern military machines in the world. The US dismembered them in weeks. Granted, China has nuclear weapons, but there isn't much incentive to go there when they've got hundreds of warheads and the US has thousands. If the US were to dismember China's command and control systems and degrade China's conventional forces that country would be ungovernable pretty quickly. No need to invade. I doubt the kleptocrats want to see that happen. They'll make a lot of noise and then back down (while squirreling their cash out of the country to those running dog capitalist nations that they claim to hate so much while sending their children their to study and store their ill gotten corruption money.

    18. Re: Time for war by jxander · · Score: 2

      Last time Japan fought China, they were literately putting babies on spikes. Probably ate a few babies, too.

      Japan is fucked up. We need to be really really certain before we loose that monster. And lest we forget, we nuked them. Twice.

      --
      This signature is false.
    19. Re:Time for war by execthis · · Score: 2

      You can't be serious. They trespass into Japan's territorial waters on a regular basis. They threaten Taiwan. The heavily bombed Taiwan islands twice. They declared the air zone in international airspace to impose that other aircraft inform them. Their claims are outrageous.

      Then there is Xinjiang where they basically crushed the peaceful, indigenous people there, imposing brutal, dehumanizing regulations and conditions upon them. Same thing in Tibet.

      Chinese are fucked. Their argument that their totalitarian-style government is somehow necessary flies in the face that countries in the region like Japan and Taiwan are healthy, thriving democracies.

    20. Re: Time for war by vyvepe · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Here is a possible reason why Chinese did it:

      "China is very sensitive about unmanned underwater vehicles because they can track our nuclear ballistic missile submarines fleet," said retired Major General Xu Guangyu, a senior researcher at Beijing-based research group the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association. "If one from the Bowditch can be detected and even snatched by a Chinese naval ship, it shows it's getting too close to the sensitive water areas."

    21. Re:Time for war by sciengin · · Score: 2

      But did the Mongols pay for it?

    22. Re:Time for war by pablo_max · · Score: 2

      So, yeah.... actually the US does shit like this all the time. Are you suggesting that only the US can do it and all other countries must bow before their US masters?
      Face it man, the world is changing. The US, like it or not, is on the decline. Countries like China and Russia smell the blood in the water and are getting ready.
      Of course, when an animal is dying is when it can be the most dangerous. Thus, i would think that the world is actually closer to a hot war than at any time since ww2.

    23. Re:Time for war by dbIII · · Score: 2

      We simply can't tolerate this behavior.

      We did with North Korea (ship captured). We did with Cuba (U2). We did with Russia (U2 again). We did with Iran (drone).
      It looks very much like we CAN tolerate it.
      China knows it can keep on pushing and get away with it based on what has happened in the past.

  2. Re:Almost seems destiny by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    Nobody is handing anything to China. China is grabbing it.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. Activate Self-Destruct! by maharvey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tell me you DID give it a self-destruct

    Sailor1: Sir, we captured an American underwater drone!

    Officer: Throw it back! QUICK! It's a self service torpedo...

  4. 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.

    1. Re:Glomar Explorer by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2
      Bingo!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer

      The World Ship Society November 2015 Magazine states that the Ship had arrived at the Chinese breakers at Zhoushan, Zhejiang, on 5 June 2015.

  5. Non story by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of course China will return it.

    Right after they take it apart, photograph its parts, map all its PCB traces, identify all the parts, copy its firmware and reassemble it (that last part is optional).

    And in a year at most the US can buy a comparable version at half the cost from China.

    Same thing happened when that US spy plane had to make an emergency landing awhile back (after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet). China returned the plane, in crates. I hear the crew threw all the sensitive stuff out while the plane was over the water.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Non story by swb · · Score: 2

      They should pack in a few dozen thermite grenades into those planes so when they are forced down they can just torch it if necessary.

    3. Re:Non story by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      There's nothing much in there worth getting. It's a survey drone.

  6. Dear China... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Return our toys or Trump will whine about it on Twitter.

    1. Re:Dear China... by lbmouse · · Score: 5, Funny

      Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of China? Way down, big trouble, dead! Xi Jinping, no leadership, will be out! Sad.

  7. Re:Almost seems destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's what winners do.

    They grab what they want.

    By the pussy.

  8. Re:Almost seems destiny by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    3. The one holding U.S. debt.

  9. 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 ).

  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

    2. Re:Some helpful context: by kangsterizer · · Score: 2

      Often times these drones are tested that way. They don't carry anything classified but are operated in risk areas.
      If they get detected or captured, then the Navy knows the limits of the equipment - yet won't lose data or face in the process.

      If at the same time you get can useful data for scientists, that's cool.

    3. Re:Some helpful context: by morethanapapercert · · Score: 4, Informative
      It is my understanding that there are several different distinctions, each with its own measurements, for what constitutes a nations waters.

      First off, as far as I know, all measurements are determined from the low tide water line(s)

      Second, most treaties and decisions are based on Nautical Miles, leading to much confusion on the part of laymen, especially if they are converting from metric kilometres to miles and neglect to distinguish between nautical and statute measurements.

      Third; there are several basic levels of control over waters:

      a) Internal waters (bays and rivers, no right of innocent passage by third parties)

      b)Territorial waters (12 NM from low tide line, nation must allow innocent passage but all laws of nation are in effect)

      c) archipelagic waters, (baseline drawn from outermost points of peninsulas and and islands. Nation is completely sovereign, but must allow innocent passage AND traditional fishing rights of neighbouring countries.

      d) Contiguous zone (measured another 12 NM out beyond the territorial waters. (only customs, taxation, pollution and immigration laws are in effect)

      e) Exclusive Economic zone. (TWO HUNDRED NM out from baseline, nation has exclusive rights to exploit all natural resources in the area except where already covered by Contiguous Zone.) and finally

      f) Continental Shelf 200 miles from baseline OR to the natural edge of the geologic feature WHICHEVER IS GREATER, to a maximum of 350 NM. Nation has rights to resources attached to, or below, the sea bottom in this area.

      What China appears to be doing is building artificial islands in what previously had been international waters. If it can get tacit or explicit acceptance from the international community that China is sovereign on those islands, that will allow China to dramatically expand its control in the region based on the archipelagic rule, which in turn will expand its exclusive economic zone. Remember that there is a clear difference between de facto and de jure sovereignty. The Permanent Court of Arbitration can only rule on de jure and historically, de jure sovereignty has always been secondary to de facto sovereignty. Thus, China does not need international acceptance in order to gain de facto sovereignty. By building the islands and providing military and border patrols, it already has that.

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

      Drones are primarily intelligence gathering platforms after all, not science research vessels.

      "Drones" are what the public has learned to refer to "umanned aerial vehicles" by. The term is no longer limited to military remotely operated aircraft. That DJI Phantom 3 you just bought; the $100 FPV quad; both are "drones" to the public. That cat is long out of the bag, a fight long lost.

      As such, it is much easier for the press to refer to "an underwater drone" than to try teaching the public what "autonomous underwater vehicle" means. That's what they did here.

      So no, "drones" are no longer primarily "intelligence gathering", they are used alot for scientific research. Especially the underwater glider drones that make salinity, temperature and depth measurements like the one that got stolen.

  13. Bad citizens of the world by MikeMo · · Score: 2

    It is clear that China does whatever it wants and doesn't give a damn about international law. They've had wiggle room in other cases, but this is blatant, flat-out theft in broad daylight with witnesses.

  14. Re:Almost seems destiny by dpilot · · Score: 2

    The baton has not been passed/grabbed since the beginning of the nuclear age. We live in "Interesting Times," I fear.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  15. 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.

  16. Re:heres the operative sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The South China Sea is, contrary to what you might expect from the name, not chinese territory except for small parts. It is mostly international waters.

  17. 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." -
  18. Re:Almost seems destiny by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    And they are going to get us to honor our debt how exactly?

    Like everything else China does, dumping U.S. debt into the open market.

  19. Re:heres the operative sentence by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The South China Sea is not all China's territorial waters. Even they don't even claim all of it. Some of the parts they DO claim are closer to other countries than they are China, making those claims pretty ludicrous, IMO.

  20. 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"
  21. Re:heres the operative sentence by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 5, Informative

    The map in the article suggests it was confiscated just off the coast of the Philippines in Subic Bay - the Chinese were way outside their territorial waters on this one.

  22. Re:Almost seems destiny by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you see people you disagree with as having the mental capacity of a turnip, you might only have made it to cabbage yourself.

  23. 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

  24. Re:Almost seems destiny by Shatrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That would be better as a Haiku.

    That's what winners do
    They grab whatever they want
    Grab by the pussy

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  25. Re:Almost seems destiny by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    Also, if I'm the US, as long as I have the nukes, I ain't paying.

    The Chinese have nukes. They also have a larger population (1.3B people vs. 360M). If a nuclear exchange took place, the Chinese are more likely to survive. Also, the Russians wouldn't appreciate nukes being blown in their backyard and may toss a few back at the U.S. But, go ahead, keep waving your Johnson and prove to the world that Americans are stupid.

  26. Re:heres the operative sentence by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

    I from the US, so I might be biased, but it sounds more like China is pretending they own the street in front of their house and grabbed our RC car as we drove it down the street. If we drove into their yard, yeah, they'd be justified, but pretty much the everybody but China agrees that the street doesn't belong to them.

  27. let's open this up by benjonson · · Score: 2

    China -- were we spying on you with this tool? Show the world -- show us the software and hardware spy tools you have found.
    U.S. -- innocent drone? Show the world -- show us the software and hardware tools on our innocent drone-- certainly this should be transparent?

    --
    =-+
  28. Re:Almost seems destiny by hey! · · Score: 2

    Just in terms of military spending, China is #2 in the world. They spend 36% as much as we do.

    Our spending over twice what they do might sound reassuring, but we have to factor in waste. There's always waste, but waste in US procurement waste is epic due to pork barrel spending -- which China as a non-democracy doesn't have. Think how much more the F35 program costs us because it has been distributed to practically every congressional district in the country. Imagine how that program might be different if it was run in the cheapest way to obtain the desired bang.

    So in some ways we're not in an arms race, we're in a waste-and-corruption race, and that's a contest we really don't want to win. It's conceivable that China might be getting more value for its $215 billion than we're getting for our $596 billion.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  29. Re:Almost seems destiny by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    waste in US procurement waste is epic due to pork barrel spending -- which China as a non-democracy doesn't have.

    I agree. Look at Zimbabwe - absolutely no corruption there. You don't get officials handing contracts to companies owned by their cousins or any of that shit.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  30. America clearly came out ahead in this by execthis · · Score: 2

    America is the clear winner in this. Chinese steal a drone exploration watercraft 50 mi. off the coast of the Philippines in an act no better than common criminal pirates.

    Who looks desperate and pathetic as hell?

    We lost a drone. They confirm that they are major loser thugs for the world to witness.

    1. Re:America clearly came out ahead in this by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The moral ground has been lost so calling people thugs doesn't work anymore.
      Bush, Cheney etc didn't think ahead when they approved torturing folks.

  31. Re:Are you joking?? by pablo_max · · Score: 2

    Seriously, you must be joking. I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but in the US, you don't make shit. Sure, you design stuff, but you produce all your shit in China and other 3rd and 2nd world countries.
    And you think blocking incoming goods would not lose jobs? If you are not making shit, then what are most of you doing? Oh yeah... selling shit. If there is no shit to sell and no shit to buy then there is no need to have a job selling shit. No need to have a job designing shit either since you cant afford to produce it in the US since it would be too expensive to buy because no one has a job since there is no more shit to sell.
    It's all connected man.